Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sudesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:17549) on 23 April, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:17549]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4105/2024
Sudesh Kumar S/o Shri Dilip, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Dhani 13
Ksd Alipura Ps Sadulshahar Dist Sriganganagar (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagr )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Ms. Kamla Goswami, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 23/04/2024 This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.147/2022 registered at Police Station Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 8/15 & 25 of N.D.P.S. Act.
The earlier bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2023.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband (poppy husk/ straw) was not recovered from the conscious possession of (Downloaded on 23/04/2024 at 08:39:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17549] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4105/2024] the present petitioner and rather, the contraband (poppy husk/ straw) weighing 90 Kgs was recovered from a field situated in the Village 13 KSD Alipura.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Investigating Officer (PW1), learned counsel submitted that no documents to establish the ownership of the alleged place of recovery of the contraband were procured by the I.O.
Learned counsel submitted that since the place from where the contraband was recovered does not belong to the present petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner has got any connection with the recovered contraband.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.08.2022 and till date, out of the total 18 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of only one cited prosecution witness have been recorded before the competent criminal court.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay in trial before the competent criminal court is attributable to the present petitioner and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that though the contraband was recovered from an open place, one constable namely Ashwini Kumar has seen the petitioner fleeing away from the scene who knew him from before. However, learned Public Prosecutor was not (Downloaded on 23/04/2024 at 08:39:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17549] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4105/2024] in a position to refute the fact that no documents to establish that the present petitioner was the owner of the alleged place of recovery of the contraband are available on record to connect the petitioner with the said recovered contraband.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the recovery of the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was made from an open place, however, no documents were procured by the I.O. to establish the ownership/possession of the present petitioner in connection with the aforesaid place. This Court prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 09.08.2022; and out of the total 18 cited prosecution witnesses, statements on only one cited prosecution witness have been recorded before the competent criminal court. This Court also prima facie finds that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner is adopting delay as a defence tactic to seek bail in the matter. In the opinion of this Court, the twin conditions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sudesh Kumar S/o Shri Dilip arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.147/2022 registered at Police Station Sadulshahar, District Sri (Downloaded on 23/04/2024 at 08:39:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:17549] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4105/2024] Ganganagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 31-divya/chhavi-
(Downloaded on 23/04/2024 at 08:39:49 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)