Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vinod Bajiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:4504) on 23 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:4504]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14166/2024
Vinod Bajiya S/o Premaram Baajiya, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Pyanwa, P.s. Khunkhuna, Dist Nagaur. (Presently Lodged In
Central Jail , Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/01/2025
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been
arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.259/2022, registered at
Police Station Khunkhuna, District Nagaur, for offences under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 201 of IPC; Sections 3/25 of Arms
Act; and Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
As per the prosecution, SHO P.S. Khunkhuna on 15.12.2022,
conducted nakabandi (blockade) on the road from Khojas to
Toshina at sarhad Khojas when at about 03:10 pm., two
unnumbered white Scorpio vehicles, coming from Toshina were
signaled to stop. The driver of first unnumbered Scorpio vehicle
accelerated the speed of the vehicle and ran away, however, the
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 09:52:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4504] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14166/2024]
driver of the second unnumbered Scorpio vehicle i.e. the present
petitioner, upon seeing the police personnels stopped the vehicle
in the middle of the road and tried to flee from the scene
alongwith the co-passenger. The police personnels however,
chased and nabbed the petitioner and upon being inquired, he
disclosed the name of the person who ran away as Sunil S/o
Jeevaram.
As per the prosecution, when Vinod Kumar Bajia (i.e. present
petitioner) was asked the reason for running away and about the
material loaded in the unnumbered Scorpio vehicle, he told that
the he was transporting the contraband (poppy husk/straw) in the
offending vehicle without possessing any valid license for the
same. The police personnel thereupon after following the
procedure provided under the NDPS Act, recovered the contraband
(poppy husk/straw) weighing 4 quintals 15 kgs. alongwith 1 pistol
with 3 live cartridges from the offending vehicle.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and having perused the statements of the Seizure Officer (PW.1)
and the Investigating Officer (PW.2), this Court prima facie finds
that in the present case, a huge quantity of the contraband (poppy
husk/straw) was recovered from the conscious and exclusive
possession of the present petitioner and he was arrested on the
spot. This Court prima facie does not find any illegality or
irregularity in the search and seizure proceedings conducted by
the police team lead by SHO Police Station Khunkhuna, District
Nagaur.
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 09:52:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4504] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14166/2024]
This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein it
has observed as under:-
“……Negation of bail is the rule and its grant
and exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of
Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must,
on the basis of the record produced before it, be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offences with which he is charged and further that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It
has further to be noticed that the conditions for
granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of subsection
(1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations
provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or
any other law for the time being in force regulating
the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of
bail under the Act is uncalled for.”
Hon’ble the Supreme Court and co-ordinate Benches of this
Court in a number of judgments have held that a bail Court while
dealing with the matters under NDPS Act, involving commercial
quantity has to record its satisfaction in light of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. The mandate contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act has
been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in
the following cases:-
(i) State of Kerela & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors.
reported in AIR 2020 SC 721,
(ii) Union of India Vs. Ratan Malik reported in
(2009) 2 SCC 624,
(iii) Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kishan Lal &
Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 558,
(iv) Union of India Vs. Shiv Shaurav Kesari
reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798, and(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 09:52:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:4504] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14166/2024]
(v) Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau Vs.
Sambhu Sonkar & Ors., Control reported in AIR
2001 SC 830.
In the present case, as stated above, the contraband (poppy
husk/straw) greater than commercial quantity has been recovered
from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present
petitioner. This Court is therefore, unable to record its satisfaction/
mandatory findings in terms of Section 37(b)(2) of the NDPS Act,
that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence of NDPS Act
while on bail.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
214-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 27/01/2025 at 09:52:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link