Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shankarlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27368) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27368]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13264/2024
Shankarlal S/o Ramlal Gadri, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Lakshmipura Negdiya, Thana Mangalwad, Dist Chittorgarh, Raj.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Gopal Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. CS Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/06/2025
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 46/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Aakola 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and 307 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 19.07.2024
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
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 08:22:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27368] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13264/2024]
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
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 gone through challan papers and other material
available on record.
A vehicle was intercepted by the police team on
21.05.2022 in which two persons namely Bhajan Lal and
Jugnu were found. They had 407.900 Kg of poppy husk in
their possession. During the course of investigation, it is
claimed by the prosecution that aforementioned two accused
made discloser to the Investigating Officer regarding
involvement of the petitioner in capacity of a person who
provided the contraband to them. There is force in the
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that except
the confession made by aforementioned two accused to a
police officer while in police custody, nothing is there to
verify, bolster, corroborate or support their allegation and if
the confession is discarded in light of Section 25 & 26 of the
Indian Evidence Act, there remains nothing to insinuate the
petitioner. He is behind the bars since 10.07.2024 and more
than one year have elapsed. Learned counsel for the
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 08:22:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27368] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13264/2024]
petitioner place reliance on the land mark judgment of privy
counsel in case of Pulukari Kotayya Vs. Kind Emperor, AIR
1947, P.C.67 and Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha,
MANU/SCOR/83201/2023, whereby the question of embargo
contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act has been elaborately
discussed. 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
3-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 08:22:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)