Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Labhchand @ Labhuram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13294) on 10 March, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:13294]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15853/2024
Labhchand @ Labhuram S/o Rodilal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Araniya Mamadev (Rundi), P.s. Javad, Dist Neemach (M.p)
(Lodged In Dist Jail Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi.
Mr. Manohar Singh.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
10/03/2025
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.98/2018 registered at Police Station
Sadri, District Pali, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the
NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution story, the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing
150 Kgs. was recovered on 01.06.2018 from an abandoned
Scorpio having registration No.GJ-01-KL-8161. As per the
prosecution, a mobile having sim card registered in the name of
the co-accused Bhawara Ram was recovered from the said
abandoned vehicle. The co-accused Bhawara Ram, in his
statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
divulged an information that he had procured the recovered
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13294] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15853/2024]
contraband from the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted
that the contraband in the present case was not recovered from
the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that apart from
the disclosure statements of the co-accused Bhawara Ram, there
is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner
with the recovered contraband.
Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Bhawara
Ram (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.11147/2022) on the basis
of whose statements, the petitioner has been implicated in this
case, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order
dated 12.09.2023.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody; investigation against him has already been completed
and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore,
the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender
and therefore, looking to the seriousness of allegation against the
petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However,
he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused
Bhawara Ram on the basis of whose statements the petitioner has
been implicated in this case, has already been enlarged on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The order dated 12.09.2023 passed by this Court while
granting bail to the co-accused Bhawara Ram is reproduced herein
below for ready reference:
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13294] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15853/2024]
“This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.98/2018, registered at Police
Station Sadri, District Pali, for offence under Section 8/15 of
the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
the prosecution, the contraband (poppy husk / poppy straw)
weighing 150 Kg was recovered on 01.06.2018 from an
abandoned Scorpio having registration No.GJ-01-KL-8161. As
per prosecution, a mobile having SIM card registered in the
name of present petitioner was recovered from the
abandoned vehicle.
Learned counsel submitted that admittedly the
contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession
of the present petitioner and there is no evidence available
on record to connect the petitioner with the recovered
contraband. Drawing attention of the Court towards the
statement of the Investigating Officer – Surja Ram (SHO)
recorded before the competent criminal court on 24.04.2023
as P.W.-2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the Investigating Officer during cross examination has
admitted that the mobile allegedly having SIM card in the
name of present petitioner was not submitted by the
Investigating Agency in the malkhana.
Learned counsel submitted that the entire case against
the present petitioner revolves around SIM card recovered
from abandoned Scorpio which is in the name of present
petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of
the fact that SIM card which is in the name of present
petitioner was not submitted by the investigating agency in
the malkhana, it can safely be concluded that there is no
evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with
the commission of alleged crime. It was submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.12.2021 and the trial
of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the
benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that during the course of
investigation, sufficient material has been recovered by the
investigating agency indicating involvement of the present
petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The relevant portion of the statement of the
Investigating Officer (P.W.-2) is reproduced herein below:-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13294] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15853/2024]
“;g dguk lgh gS fd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ml eksckbZy ls fle dks ckgj fudkydj
tkap ugha dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eky[kkuk jftLVj dh izfr ns[kdj dgk fd
mDr izfr esa eky[kkuk esa eksckbZy tek djkus dk bUnzkt ugha gSA”
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, so also the fact that the mobile
allegedly recovered from the abandoned vehicle with the SIM
card registered in the name of present petitioner has not
been submitted by the investigating agency in the malkhana,
there is no evidence to indicate the involvement of the
present petitioner in commission of the alleged offence,
without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the
case, this Court is of the view that embargo contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the present
case and thus, the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail in
the present case.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Bhawara Ram S/o Arjun Ram arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.98/2018, registered at Police Station Sadri, District
Pali, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of
learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on
each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do
so till completion of the trial.”
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the co-accused
Bhawara Ram on the basis of whose statements the petitioner has
been implicated in this case, has already been enlarged on bail,
without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case,
this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Labhchand @ Labhuram S/o Rodilal arrested in connection
with F.I.R. No.98/2018 registered at Police Station Sadri, District
Pali, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case,
provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13294] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15853/2024]court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the
trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
275-Tikam/-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:40:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)