[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chunaram @ Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18835) on 17 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:18835]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1990/2025
Chunaram @ Sunil S/o Udaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Mundo Ki Dhaani , P.s. Nagana , Dist Barmer (Raj) (Presently
Lodged In Dist Jail Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khillery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. RS Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/04/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance
of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 92/2020 2. Concerned Police Station Bhadrajun 3. District Jalore 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act, 3/25 of Arms Act and 411, 489 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 22.01.2025
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:30:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18835] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1990/2025]
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts of the case
are that on 15.07.2020, a vehicle was intercepted by the
police team of Police Station Bhadrajun, District Jalore and
the culprits succeed in making their escape good and as such
no one was found present when the police team reached at
crime scene. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons.
Certain quantity of contraband came to be recovered from the
vehicle as it is alleged. The investigation was carried. Based
on ATM withdrawal slip lying in the vehicle, it was revealed
that whoever carrying the contraband had also nexus with the
withdrawal of the amount and, therefore, the direction of the
investigation was shifted towards the person who made
withdrawal from the ATM booth. Admittedly, the petitioner is
not the registered owner or de facto owner of the vehicle. He
has been booked in this case based on the statement of one
Smt. Pushpa wife of Kamal Kishore Jat, who states that her
uncle Heera Ram took the vehicle from the petitioner for the
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:30:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18835] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1990/2025]
purpose of going to ATM booth to withdraw the amount. A
perusal of her statement suggests that the ATM withdrawal
slip has dropped in the vehicle. Smt. Pushpa was again
examined and her supplementary statement was recorded on
24.12.2024 wherein she states that her husband had gave his
ATM card to one Rekha Ram so as to make withdrawal of the
amount from the ATM booth. She made a blatant retraction
from her previous statement perhaps for the purpose of
absolving Heera Ram from the criminal liability. Interestingly,
neither Rekha Ram nor Heera Ram have been booked in this
matter. A very perplexing circumstance appeared as to what
would be the basis to substantiate charge of having unlawful
possession of contraband by the petitioner. The deficit nature
of evidence cannot be a basis for incarcerating an accused for
a longer period. The petitioner is behind the bars since
19.07.2024. After having gone through the list of witnesses,
this Court feels that no one has been projected as a witness
of the prosecution to depose against the petitioner directly or
indirectly to arraign him as an accused in this case and,
therefore, the fetter contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act
would not come in the way while granting bail to the
petitioner. There is high probability that the trial may take
long time to conclude. In light of these facts and
circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of
bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:30:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18835] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1990/2025]
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court
concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called
upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
8-divya/-
(Downloaded on 21/04/2025 at 09:30:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link