Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Usman vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 24 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT USMAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3875 of 2012 under section 439 Cr.P.C. in the matter of FIR No. 111/10-11 registered at Police Station Excise City Alwar in Criminal Case No. 23/108/2012 for the offence under sections 16/564, 19/54, 54 A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and against the order dated 9.4.2012 rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner. Date of Order : April 24 , 2012 PRESENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Manish Gupta, for the petitioner Mr. Peeyush Kumar, PP for the State. --- REPORTABLE BY THE COURT :
This criminal Misc. Bail Application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. in the matter of FIR No. 111/10-11 registered at Police Station Excise City Alwar in Criminal Case No. 23/108/2012 for the offence under sections 16/564, 19/54, 54 A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and against the order dated 9.4.2012 rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner.
2. The complainant Gyan Prakash Meena, Additional Directror Excise PS Excise City Alwar lodged an FIR at Police Station Excise City Alwar bearing No. 11/10-11 under sections 16/54 of Excise Act. It is alleged that 4000 Kg. Cannabis leaves kept in Plastic bags were recovered from Truck No. HR 58 A 3086 and the samples of same were sent to the FSL and the FSL found that the above mentioned samples Bhang Patti(Cannabis leaves) marked S-1 to S-1000 on examination the positive results for Bhang. The owner of the said vehicle No. HR 58 A 3086 was Usman son of Abdul Hafiz. During the course of investigation, the police with the aid of section 54 A of Rajasthan Excise Act found the petitioner as the owner of alleged vehicle recovered during the course of investigation. The petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 3.4.2012. The petitioner preferred bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the court below and the court below vide order dated 8.4.2012 rejected the bail application.
3. Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is not certain that alleged recovered article was Bhang because the prosecution still has not received FSL report. The petitioner is being arrested only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The petitioner has been arrested with the aid of section 54 A of the Rajasthan Excise Act whereas the registered owner of alleged vehicle is Neeraj Kumar. As per the provision of the Act, the registered owner of the vehicle, used to commit offence for some excisable article could be said to be an accused with the aid of section 54 A of the Act. The police roped the petitioner with the offence despite of the fact he is nothing to do with the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed written submissions. It has been alleged in the written submission that the registered owner of the seized vehicle is Neeraj Kumar. The investigating agency has made the petitioner as an accused on the basis of a receipt recovered from Neeraj Kumar whereby it is alleged that the vehicle has been sold to the petitioner. Section 54 A of the Rajasthan Excise Act postulates that the owner of the vehicle, which is being used for commission of any offence which comes under 16 or 19 read with 54 of the Act, will be treated as an accused, shall be deemed to be guilt of such an offence and such owner shall be liable to be proceeded against and punishable accordingly. The main accused namely Vijay Tagore, Naseeb Khan, and Furkan have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In these circumstances it was prayed that the petitioner is not registered owner and hence he should also be released on bail.
4. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State has categorically opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was argued that the registered owner of the vehicle Neeraj Kumar sold the said vehicle to the petitioner and hence the main culprit for the recovery of the said 4000 Kg. Cannabis leaves is the petitioner and hence he is not entitled to be released on bail. The Sessions Judge Alwar has rightly rejected the bail application of the accused petitioner. In these circumstances it was prayed that the bail application of the accused petitioner should not be allowed at this stage.
5. I have heard Mr. Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Rajasthan and have also gone through the order dated 9.4.2012 of the Sessions Judge Alwar, rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner and the other material made available to me for perusal.
6. The Sessions Judge in its order dated 9.4.2012 observed as under :
????? ???????? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ??, ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ? ???????????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ??, ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????: ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????
????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ????????????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??, ?? ?????? ??? ???????????? ???? ?????, ???? ???, ? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? 439 ??0???0??0 ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? 4000 ????????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????, ????? ??? ??? ??: ????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????
????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?? 4000 ????????? ????????? ????? ??? ??, ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???????????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? 439 ??0???0??0 ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ???, ????? ?? ???????????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???
7. I am in agreement with the order passed by the Sessions Judge and looking to the fact that 4000 Kg. Cannabis Leaves have been recovered from the vehicle, whose owner was the accused petitioner, who has been recently surrendered on 3.4.2012 before the trial court, in my view without commenting on the merits of the case as it will affect the either case of the parties, this bail application of the accused petitioner stands rejected at this stage.
(M.C. SHARMA )J. OPPareek/ All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed (O P Pareek) PS-cum JW