Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohd. Salim vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:19249) on 2 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:19249]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4836/2024

 Mohd. Salim S/o Mukhtiyar Hussain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
 Baori Mohalla, Police Station Pratapgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.)
 (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                  Connected With
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4532/2024
 Akbar S/o Niyaj Mohammad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bawadi
 Mohalla, Pratapgarh, Police Station And Dist. Pratapgarh. (At
 Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya
                                    Mr. NK Gurjar
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 02/05/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                          Particulars of the Case
     1.    FIR Number                                  138/2023
     2.    Concerned Police Station                    Dhamotar
     3.    District                                    Pratapgarh

                         (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:03:28 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JD:19249]                        (2 of 3)                      [CRLMB-4836/2024]


     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                  Under Sections 8/22 of
                                                            the NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                       -

6. Date of passing of impugned 30.03.2024 order in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4836/2024

7. Date of passing of impugned 02.04.2024 order in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4532/2024

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and his 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-petitioners and they have been made 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 perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the recovery has been effected from the pocket of the pant worn by the petitioner and no notice required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has been given. It is mandated by the law that before making a personal search, the Searching Officer is require to give a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In the Constitution Bench judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat decided on 29 (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:03:28 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:19249] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4836/2024] October, 2010 reported in 2011 (1) SCC 609, it has propounded that not giving the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act would vitiate the conviction. Similar view has been taken in another Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172.

5. In the given circumstance, the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into play while granting bail to the petitioners. 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 petitioners in the present matter.

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

7. A copy of this order be placed in each file.

(FARJAND ALI),J 701- 702 divya/-

(Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:03:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)