Introduction:

In the case of Rakesh v State of Rajasthan, 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 151, the Rajasthan High Court denied an interim bail application filed by an accused under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner sought temporary release for 40 days to attend his sister’s wedding, arguing that his presence was crucial for the family event and that there was no risk of him fleeing. The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, however, agreed with the public prosecutor’s opposition to the bail, citing potential risks to public safety and the serious nature of the charges against the accused.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Rakesh, contended that his presence at home was indispensable for his sister’s wedding. He emphasized the importance of familial obligations and argued that his release would not pose any threat to public safety or risk of absconding. The petitioner assured the court that he would return to custody after the stipulated period and sought the court’s leniency to fulfill his family responsibilities.

The public prosecutor strongly opposed the interim bail application, arguing that the petitioner might use the guise of attending the wedding to abscond and evade custody. Given the gravity of the offences, including drug peddling charges, the prosecutor asserted that granting bail could jeopardize public safety. The prosecutor highlighted the potential risks involved in releasing an individual facing such serious charges, suggesting that the petitioner’s release might undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

Court’s Judgment:

After careful consideration of the arguments, Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni ruled in favor of denying the interim bail application. The court underscored the severity of the charges against the petitioner, emphasizing the need to prioritize public safety over personal obligations. Justice Soni noted that the potential risks associated with granting bail to an individual accused of drug peddling could not be ignored.

In his ruling, Justice Soni stated, “Granting interim bail for the marriage of the petitioner’s sister may pose a threat to public safety when the applicant is facing pending criminal charges like drug peddling. Keeping the applicant in custody ensures that any potential risks are mitigated while he attends said marriage. Allowing interim bail for said purpose raises concerns about the applicant’s potential to flee from justice.”

The court also pointed out that the petitioner’s sister had other brothers who could perform the necessary marriage rituals, thereby reducing the necessity of the petitioner’s presence. The court concluded that the public safety concerns and the gravity of the charges outweighed the petitioner’s familial obligations, leading to the rejection of the interim bail application.