Hanumanaram Alias Hadmanaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 May, 2025

0
44

[ad_1]

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Hanumanaram Alias Hadmanaram vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 May, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:23860]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3995/2025

Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram S/o Loonaram, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Barthal Bhakhari, Police Station Osian, At Present
House No. 352, Indra Colony, Near Water Tank, Mahamandir,
Jodhpur.
(Present Lodged In District Jail, Phalodi)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                            Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)               :     Mr. Zeeshan Ali
                                      Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s)               :     Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
                                      Prosecutor



    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

Order reserved on : 16/05/2025
Order pronounced on : 21/05/2025

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439

Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.16/2023, registered at Police Station

Bhojasar, District – Jodhpur Rural for offences under Sections 8/15

& 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 411 of the IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

As per the story of the prosecution, illegal narcotic

contraband weighing 150.97 kg Doda Post has been recovered

form the Bada/shed adjacent to the house of the co-accused

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:48:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23860] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3995/2025]

Sharwan. The allegation against the accused-petitioner

Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram is of supplying the illegal

contraband to co-accused Sharwan. At the time of raid two

persons were found sitting in a fortuner car in the field of

Shrawan. The allegations against them are of recce. They

disclosed their names as Ramnarayan and Rohitash. Accused-

petitioner Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram and co-accused

Sharwan were found present in the Bara of the house of Sharwan

after seeing the police party they fled away from the spot. They

were identified by the co-accused Ramnarayan and Rohitash. Co-

accused Ramnarayan and Rohitash were arrested on the spot.

Accused Shrawan was arrested later on.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused

Sharwan from whose Bara adjacent to the house, the narcotic

contraband was recovered, has been enlarged on bail by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.03.2025,

passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11993/2024. The

case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable than that of

the co-accused Sharwan who has been enlarged on bail.

He further submitted that co-accused Ramnarayan, Rohitash

and Prakash Chand have also been enlarged on bail by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.09.2023 and

16.10.2023, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No.3986/2023 and 12925/2023 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has

no concern with the alleged recovery. In the present case the

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:48:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23860] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3995/2025]

recovery which has been carried out from an open place, has been

planted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

accused is in judicial custody since 18.02.2023 and the trial of the

case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-

petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail application and submitted that accused has committed a

serious crime under the NDPS Act. The petitioner-accused is the

principal accused who supplied the narcotic contraband to the co-

accused Sharwan Kumar and at the time of seizure of narcotic

contraband from the Bara of the house co-accused Sharwan,

present petitioner-accused was also present there who after

seeing the the police party fled away from the spot.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that earlier, the

charge-sheet against the accused Ramnarayan, Rohitash and

Shravan has been filed, whereas the proceedings against the

accused-petitioner Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram and the co-

accused Prakash Chand, the owner of the escort vehicle HR-23BJ-

0351, were kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter

charge-sheet against these accused persons has been filed.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that against the

co-accused Shrawan, there is only one case, whereas against the

accused-petitioner Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram there are 30

other cases pending, out of which 7 cases are of NDPS Act. He is a

habitual offender. Thus, the case of the accused-petitioner

Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram is different than that of the

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:48:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:23860] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3995/2025]

accused Shrawan. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the

gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the

petitioner.

This Court finds that illegal narcotic contraband weighing

150.97 kg Doda Post has been recovered form the Bada/shed

adjacent to the house of the co-accused Sharwan. The allegation

against the accused-petitioner Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram is

of supplying the illegal contraband to co-accused Sharwan. At the

time of raid, accused-petitioner Hanumanaram @ Hadmanaram

and co-accused Sharwan were found present in the house of

Sharwan and after seeing the police party they ran away from the

spot. The recovered narcotic contraband is above the commercial

quantity. There are 30 other cases pending against the present

petitioner, out of which 7 cases are of NDPS Act. He is a habitual

offender. The case of the present petitioner Hanumanaram @

Hadmanaram is different than that of co-accused Sharawan.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case;

considering that the recovered narcotic contraband is above the

commercial quantity; also considering the fact that there are 30

other cases, pending against the present petitioner, this Court is

not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.

The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.

(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
36-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:48:09 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

[ad_2]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here