Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12196) on 4 March, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12196]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2274/2025
Suresh S/o Roop Lal Teli, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Atahna, P.s.
Javad, Dist. Neemuch (Mp) (At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail,
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2276/2025
Bheru Singh S/o Bhopal Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Borkheri, Ward No. 4, Borkheri Kallan Post Javi, Dist. Nimach
(Mp) (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Charan
Mr. Kailash Chandra Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/03/2025
1. These applications for bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.
(Section 439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have
been arrested in connection with FIR No.64/2023 registered at
Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, for offences under
Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the co-
accused persons namely Goverdhan Lal (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12196] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025]
Bail Application No.13803/2023) and Ram Prasad (S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.8077/2023) have already been enlarged
on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated
28.11.2023 and 01.03.2024, respectively. Learned counsel for the
petitioners further submitted that the co-accused persons namely
Goverdhan Lal and Ram Prasad in the information supplied by
them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that they
had procured the recovered contraband from the present
petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that apart from the disclosure statement of above named co-
accused persons, there is nothing on record indicating the
involvement of the present petitioners in commission of the
alleged crime.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time and the prosecution has not shown any
apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material
prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in
case they are enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail applications and submitted that in the present
case, contraband grater than commercial quantity was recovered
by the investigating agency, therefore, looking to the seriousness
of the allegation levelled against the present petitioners, they do
not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a
position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons from whose
conscious possession contraband greater than commercial
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12196] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025]
quantity was recovered have already been enlarged on bail.
However, he was also not in a position to refute the fact that other
co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail.
6. The order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court while granting bail to co-accused persons
namely Ram Prasad S/o Nirbhaya Ram Dhakar and Pankaj S/o
Kalu Lal Dhakad is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“1. The prayer made in these bail applications
filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short “the Code”) is for grant of bail in
connection with crime registered pursuant to First
Information Report no.64/2023 of Police Station
Bhadesar District Chittorgarh in respect of offence(s)
punishable under Section(s) 8/15 & 8/25 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Let me briefly mention the facts germane for
disposal of present bail application. That on
18.04.2023, police after having received a secret
information laid Nakabandi at Jitwal Road and stopped
a pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-44-GA-
2097 which was being driven by Ramprasad Dhakar.
Goverdhan was sitting on the seat next to the driver.
On search being made, police allegedly recovered
400.370 Kgs of Poppy Straw from the vehicle. Since
occupants of the aforesaid vehicle as detailed
hereinabove, failed to render plausible explanation qua
the possession of commercial quantity of contraband,
police after completion of formalities, arrested both of
them.
3. To begin at the beginning learned counsel
representing both petitioners have fervently argued
that applicant was Ramprasad only a driver. Co-
accused Goverdhan took his vehicle on hire from the
taxi stand. Ramprasad was not the only one sitting in
the vehicle but the real owner of the contraband
Goverdhan was with him in the vehicle, whom he didn’t
even know earlier. He had no knowledge about the
contraband. Alleged contraband was loaded by
Goverdhan and applicant was simply acting on the
instruction of goods owner, without knowledge of goods
stored in bags.
4. He further argued that, without any fault of the
applicant driver, he has been implicated in the matter.
He next submitted is that even at the time of search
and recovery mandatory provisions of Section 42 and
50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by
Seizure Officer. From the perusal of the recovery
memo, it appears that third option was given to the
applicant that if he wants, he may give his search to(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12196] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025]the Seizure Officer as well and personal search of the
applicant was also carried out. Undisputedly, the
applicant was neither produced before the Magistrate
nor before the Gazetted Officer. His search was
conducted by the police personnel at the alleged spot
of recovery and, therefore, considering the fact that
mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been
complied with entire recovery vitiates.
5. He further argued that entire allegations so leveled
by the police against the petitioner is totally false and
baseless; that there is no concrete evidence to show
direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged
contraband drug, rather case of the prosecution is
based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound
legal evidence. Therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be
released on bail.
6. Learned counsel representing another petitioner –
Pankaj vehemently urged that the petitioner Pankaj has
been implicated in the present case merely being the
registered owner of the involved vehicle. He was not
arrested on the spot with the contraband; that there is
no connectivity of any kind between the petitioner –
Pankaj and the principal accused Goverdhan; that he
has falsely been implicated on the basis of information
furnished by co-accused. Except the information
furnished by co-accused, there is no substantive
evidence against the petitioner to connect with the
alleged offence; that neither the petitioner got loaded
the contraband in the involved vehicle, which was
found under the control of the Goverdhan nor he
accompanied the co-accused during the transportation
of it; that there is not even an iota of evidence on
record to establish any connection between the
petitioner – Pankaj and the seized contraband; that
petitioner has been arrested after many months of the
alleged incident. He further contended that the sole
evidence on which prosecution relies upon to prosecute
the petitioner is the information of the co-accused
which is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
whatsoever. On the strength of above arguments, he
prayed for release of petitioner on bail.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail applications and submitted that from the
perusal of the recovery memo it appears that
provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have been duly
complied with in its letter and spirit and, therefore,
considering the non-obstante clause of Section 37 of
NDPS Act, petitioners should not be released on bail.
8. It is further argued that all factual issues which
cannot be addressed at this stage and ought to be
determined only after trial. It was submitted that the
Investigating Officer had collected overwhelming
evidence in the case which would prima-facie point
towards the guilt of the accused; that keeping in view
the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed
by them, they do not deserve any leniency, contraband
of commercial quantity have been seized from the(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12196] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025]accused; that the drug recovered falls within the ambit
of commercial quantity. Therefore, petitioners do not
deserve to be released on bail.
9. I have mulled upon the arguments advanced by
both the parties and have given thoughtful
consideration to the material placed on record.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is
admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant
Ramprasad drove the vehicle on hire at the behest of
Goverdhan, acting as a driver and the contraband was
being transported in a pickup by Goverdhan himself.
Goverdhan himself was present in the vehicle at the
time of seizure and contraband was intended to be
further supplied by the Goverdhan himself.
11. Another petitioner Pankaj was not found in actual
possession of the contraband at the time of recovery;
he has been implicated as registered owner of the pick-
up vehicle; that only on the basis of information of co-
accused, petitioner Pankaj has been arraigned as an
accused and such information of the co-accused
recorded by a police officer, prima-facie not to be
treated relevant for proceeding against any other
accused.
12. In this background, I am of the opinion that the
restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act are
duly satisfied, forasmuch this Court feels that both the
applicants have available to them, substantial grounds
so as to question the prosecution case. The petitioner
Ramprasad is in custody since 18.04.2023 and Pankaj
is in custody since 17.09.2023. The bail rejection order
goes to show that they are not involved in any other
case under the N.D.P.S. Act.
13. Therefore, without commenting any further on the
merits of the present case as a whole; taking into
principles and factors relevant to be considered at the
time of deciding bail applications with reference to
material placed before me and the fact that the trial is
likely to take its own considerable time, no useful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners
behind the bars therefore, both the petitioners deserve
to be released on bail.
14. Consequently, both the bail applications are
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners Ram
Prasad S/o Nirbhaya Ram Dhakar and Pankaj S/o
Kalu Lal Dhakad in F.I.R. No. 64/2023 of Police Station
Bhadesar District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail;
provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation
to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and
as and when called upon to do so and if not required by
Jail Authorities in any other case. This order is subject to
the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release
and sureties, on the day of furnishing bail, will also
furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and
branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit
legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as front page
of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12196] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025]amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty
under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.”
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co-
accused persons from whose conscious possession contraband
greater than commercial quantity was recovered have already
been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This
Court also prima facie finds that the cases of the present
petitioners are not worse from that of above named co-accused
persons who have already been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be
accepted.
8. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 of
B.N.S.S. (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) are allowed and it is ordered that
the accused-petitioners namely Suresh S/o Roop Lal Teli and
Bheru Singh S/o Bhopal Singh Shaktawat shall be enlarged
on bail in connection with FIR No.64/2023 registered at Police
Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, provided each of them
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
268-Dinesh/-
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link