Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Badrilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13412) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:13412]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 2668/2025
Badrilal S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Arnod
Parpatiya Dist Pratapgarh (Raj) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail
Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Ravindra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/03/2025
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 71/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Bekriya 3. District Udaipur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned - 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 the
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:44:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13412] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2668/2025]
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. After rejection of bail applications on two occasions, the
petitioner preferred the third bail application on the ground that
now Investigating Officer has been examined but out of 19 only 5
witnesses could have been examined and the petitioner is
languishing in jail since March, 2023 and two years has elapsed,
the culmination of trial is not a seeming fate in a near future.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the niceties of the matter.
6. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.04.2022, a
vehicle was intercepted by a police team in an abandoned
condition. Since no one was found near the spot, a search was
conducted and during which, 76 kilogram of poppy husk came to
be recovered. After investigation, it was revealed that the
registered owner of the vehicle was one – Karubar Shankar Naidu
of Maharastra, sold the vehicle to one Pappu Ram of Pali for which
Ex. P/14, (Form No.28 of MV Act) was given to him, however, for
some or the other reasons, the transfer could not be materialised.
The case file also contains a copy of agreement dated 29.06.2021,
showing sale of the vehicle from one Prakash to the petitioner
through an agreement dated 29.06.2021. The said Prakash
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:44:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13412] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2668/2025]
alleged to have purchased the property from Pappu Ram Bishnoi
son of Sura Ram. As a matter of fact, the transfer certificate was
never changed in the Department of Transport. The agreement
dated 29.06.2021 has seriously been disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner both factually and legally. It is
contended that the said Prakash is the first party of the
agreement, was not having propriety right to sale the property to
the petitioner. Except the above, no evidence had been collected
to show or suggest the possession of the property with the
petitioner. It is argued that simply based upon documents of
inadmissible quality and impeccable quantity, the petitioner has
been arraigned as an accused in this case. Nothing has been
recovered from his instance. I have considered the submissions
and gone through the niceties of the matter. I have also
considered the legal aspect that Section 25 of the NDPS Act would
attract only when it is established that the accused was having
knowledge that his vehicle would be used in transportation of
contraband. There is no whisper regarding the fact that the
petitioner was having knowledge that his vehicle would be used by
the other persons in contravention of the penal provision of NDPS
Act.
7. Be that as it may, after two years when the trial has not
been concluded, in the given circumstances, the bar of Section 37
of NDPS Act would not apply. 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.
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:44:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13412] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2668/2025]
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. 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
101-divya/-
(Downloaded on 13/03/2025 at 09:44:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)