Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indrapal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 February, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:8625]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 13674/2024
Indrapal Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Govt. School, v.p.o Rajpuriya, P.s. Gogamedi, Dist.
Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
12/02/2025
1. This third 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.60/2019, registered at Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 17.04.2019 on the basis of a Parcha Kayami (complaint) submitted by Shri Rajendra Tada, SHO of Police Station Kachhola, an FIR No.60/2019 was registered at Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara as per which, on 17.04.2019, when as per the instructions of S.P. Bhilwara, the team of Police Station Bigod lead by its SHO was conducting nakabandi, the SHO of Police Station Bigod saw an unnumbered white coloured Bolero vehicle coming from Triveni towards NH758 and upon seeing the (Downloaded on 12/02/2025 at 09:49:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:8625] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024] police team, the driver of the offending vehicle turned the same towards Jaliya. The SHO of Police Station Bigod immediately called Shri Rajendra Tada (SHO of Police Station Kachhola) and asked him to chase the offending vehicle as he suspected that the offending vehicle might be carrying contraband. Thereupon, the SHO of Police Station Kachhola as well as SHO of Police Station Bigod with their respective teams chased the offending vehicle which was going towards village Jaliya.
3. As per prosecution, after some time, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away on foot, leaving the offending vehicle behind. The SHO Police Station Kachhola after complying with the procedure provided under the NDPS Act made a search of the offending vehicle and recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 186 kgs. from 9 plastic sacks and two sacks made of cloth.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and so also the statements of the Seizure Officer Rajendra Tada recorded before competent criminal Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the place where the search and seizure proceedings were conducted, allegedly falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Bigod. Learned counsel submitted that since SHO Police Station Kachhola had admittedly conducted the entire search and seizure proceedings, the same is not only without jurisdiction but is also in violation of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act.
(Downloaded on 12/02/2025 at 09:49:48 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:8625] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
5. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly, at the time when search and seizure proceedings were conducted, the offending vehicle was abandoned by its driver and was not in transit. According to learned counsel, since the offending vehicle was not in transit, the provisions contained in Section 42 of the NDPS Act ought to have been complied with.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovery of the contraband in the present case is vitiated for want of jurisdiction as well as due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in NDPS Act. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion; the contraband has not been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. To buttress his arguments, attention of the Court was drawn towards the statements of Satyanarayan (P.W.-01), Rishi Raj (P.W.-07), Gopal Lal (P.W.-08) and Rajendra Tada (P.W.-10) recorded before the competent criminal Court.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.11.2021; no recovery is due to be made from him; and investigation in the matter has already been completed. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case, the contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from a white coloured unnumbered Bolero vehicle. During the course of investigation, it has been found that the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending (Downloaded on 12/02/2025 at 09:49:49 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:8625] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024] vehicle. According to learned Public Prosecutor, looking to the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency, the complicity of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime cannot be ruled out. It was thus prayed that the present bail application may be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances, this Court prima facie finds that in the present case, SHO Police Station Bigod had no previous specific information about the contraband being transported in the offending vehicle. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would apply where any specific information has been received about the Narcotic Drug, or Psychotropic substance, or Control substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the NDPS Act has been committed. In the present case, as noticed above, at the time when the SHO Police Station Bigod suspected that contraband is being transported in the offending vehicle, the said vehicle was 'in transit' and therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the present case. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India through Narcotics Bureau, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Nawaz Khan reported in 2021 (10) SCC 100, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the question with regard to non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is the one which should be raised in the course of trial.
(Downloaded on 12/02/2025 at 09:49:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:8625] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
11. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that though the search and seizure proceedings have been conducted in the present case by the SHO Kachhola, however a case for the offence under the NDPS Act has been registered at Police Station Bigod, in whose territorial jurisdiction, the contraband was recovered. The act of SHO of Police Station Kachhola in the present case is in absolute conformity with the notification No. F. 1 (3) FD/EX/85-1, S.O.115 dated October 16, 1986 which reads as under:
"...xxx Provided that when power is exercised by Police Officer other than Police Inspector of the area concerned such officer shall immediately handover the person arrested and articles seized to the concerned Police Inspector or S.H.O. of the Police Station concerned."
12. It is also to be noted that the trial against the present petitioner is at its fag end as out of the total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of 10 cited witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court.
13. In view of the observations made herein above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
14. Consequently, the present third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C (483 BNSS) is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 256-Divya/-
(Downloaded on 12/02/2025 at 09:49:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)