[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Safi Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25175) on 20 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:25175]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3519/2025
Safi Khan S/o Subaan Khan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gopadi
Sanhgiyo Ki Dhani, P.S. Pachpadra, District Barmer, Raj.
(At present Lodged At Sub Jail, Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.R.S. Sodha
Mr. Magender Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
20/05/2025
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.281/2023, registered at Police Station
Pindwara, District – Sirohi for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 &
29 of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 26.08.2023 during
Nakabandi at 11:30 am, one Swift Dzire Car bearing registration
No.GJ-09BF-0719, after seeing the police party, turned around
and tried to fled away from the spot. Behind the aforesaid car a
Tata Truck bearing registration No.RJ-19GD-6834 came and the
truck driver slowed the speed of the truck and fled away from the
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25175] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-3519/2025]
spot leaving the truck there. Upon inquiry, the driver of the Swift
Dzire Car disclosed his name as Anwar Khan and the person
sitting beside him disclosed his name as Sabuddin. The person
who was seating in the truck disclosed his name as Safi Khan
(present petitioner) and the person sitting beside the driver seat
disclosed his name as Sadiq Khan. Upon searching the Swift
Dezire vehicle, no suspicious item was found in the Swift Dezire
car but it was stated by the accused persons that the said car was
escorting the truck. When the aforesaid Truck was searched, 3
quintal and 2 kg illegal narcotic contraband Doda Post (poppy
husk) was recovered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
story of the prosecution is false and concocted. No recovery is
pending against the present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the
statement of PW-1 – Hari Singh, it is revealed that all the
proceedings were carried out in the Police Station.
While relying upon the order dated 17.10.2024, passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.9064/2024 (Ratanlal Vs. Union of India), in
which a reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab reported in 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1070, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that non-collection of samples as per
the procedure laid down at the time of seizure, is an incurable
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25175] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-3519/2025]
defect and the entire proceedings thus, come under a shadow of
doubt.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
accused is in judicial custody since 26.08.2023 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 accused-petitioner along
with other co-accused persons are involved in the illegal business
of sale/purchase and transporting of the narcotic contraband.
Accused Anwar Khan and Subbudin were found escorting the truck
bearing registration No.RJ-19GD-6834 which was found
transporting 3 quintal and 2 kg illegal narcotic contraband Doda
Post (poppy husk) and at the time of search the present petitioner
Safi Khan was seating in the truck and he was also involved in the
commission of crime. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the role
of the present petitioner and the gravity of the offence, benefit of
bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
From perusal of the material available on record, this Court
finds that Accused Anwar Khan and Subbudin were found
escorting the truck bearing registration No.RJ-19GD-6834 which
was found transporting 3 quintal and 2 kg illegal narcotic
contraband Doda Post (Poppy Husk) and at the time of search the
present petitioner Safi Khan was seating in the truck.
In the present case, the recovery was alleged to be made on
the spot. But on the reason that there was rush and due to huge
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25175] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-3519/2025]
traffic on the road, the remaining proceedings after the seizure,
were completed in the premises of the Police Station which was
near the place of the incident.
The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Ratanlal (supra) placing reliance on the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Kuldeep Singh (supra) has
a difference as the judgment of Kuldeep Singh (supra) is on the
appeal challenging the conviction of the accused-appellant,
whereas in the present case the trial has not completed yet and
the statements of the witnesses are yet to be recorded and there
is no finding on the bail application. Therefore, this judgment does
not give any help to the petitioner in this case.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa
Vs. Mahimananda Mishra reported in Criminal Appeal
No.1175/2018 has held as under:-
“12. Though this Court may not ordinarily interfere
with the orders of the High Court granting or rejecting
bail to the accused, it is open for this Court to set
aside the order of the High Court, where it is apparent
that the High Court has not exercised its discretion
judiciously and in accordance with the basic principles
governing the grant of bail. (See the judgment of this
Court in the case of Neeru Yadav vs. state of Uttar
Pradesh, (2014) 16 SCC 508 and Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496). It is
by now well settled that at the time of considering an
application for bail, the Court must take into account
certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie
case against the accused, the gravity of the
allegations, position and status of the accused, the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and
repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering
with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well
as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also
well settled that the Court must not go into deep into
merits of the matter while considering an application
for bail. All that needs to be established from the
record is the existence of a prima facie case against
the accused. (See the judgment of this Court in the(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25175] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-3519/2025]case of Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,
(2018) 12 SCC 129.)
13. Keeping in mind the aforementioned principles,
we are of the view that the High Court was not
justified in going into the evidence on record in such a
depth which amounts to ascertaining the probability
of the conviction of the accused. On the other hand,
the High Court has failed to appreciate several crucial
factors that indicate that it was highly inappropriate
to grant bail in favour of the respondent.”
Hence, it is settled principle of law that the Court at the time
of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into
account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case
against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and
status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with
the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal
antecedents of the accused.
In this case, the witnesses to the seizure i.e. Ramchandra
and Praveen Singh were taken to the Police Station where their
statements were recorded. These witnesses are yet to be
examined before the learned Trial Court.
This Court finds that at this stage, when other relevant
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it cannot be said
that the accused has not committed any offence. The involvement
of the accused in the commission of offence can be ascertained
only after recording of the statements of the witnesses. No
comment can be made on the merits/demerits of the case at this
stage.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25175] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-3519/2025]
The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
11-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 08:33:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link