Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Moti Singh Sodhiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27083) on 13 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27083]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4453/2025
Moti Singh Sodhiya S/o Sh. Bheru Singh, Aged About 53 Years,
R/o Semali Mewad Ps, Dist. Neemuch, Mp. (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
13/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS 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 83/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Fuliya Kala 3. District Shahpura 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 18.02.2025
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
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:25:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27083] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4453/2025]
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. Upon
interception of motorcycle being driven by two people namely
Rahul and Rai Singh, 3.440 Kg opium came to be recovered.
Presumably, they must have been interrogated at the spot,
but nothing was disclosed regarding involvement of the
petitioner at that time. After two days in police custody, it is
claimed that the duo named above made a discloser to the
police officer while in police custody regarding involvement of
the petitioner also in procurement of contraband. There would
be no evidentiary value of the discloser made above in light
of the land mark judgment of the privy counsel in case of
Pulukari Kotayya Vs. Kind Emperor, AIR 1947, P.C.67. This
Court would desist from making any final opinion at this stage
that if the confession made above by the co-accused is
removed from the record or not taken into consideration,
then there remains nothing to rope-in the petitioner. After
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. In the given
circumstances, I do not feel that embargo contained under
Section 37 of NDPS Act would come in way to extend benefit
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:25:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27083] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4453/2025]
of bail to him. 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.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
accused-petitioner 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
48-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:25:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)