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 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2021

Author: Vijay Bishnoi

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3384/2021

Mahesh S/o Narayan Lal Prajapat, Aged About 27 Years, Pipli
Acharyan, P.s. Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (Presently Confined
At District Jail Rajsamand).
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                               ----Respondent
                            Connected With
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2957/2021
1   Rajmal @ Raju S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 33 Years,
.   Tejpura Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (At
    Present Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand).
2   Chandmal S/o Shri Kishanlal, Aged About 42 Years, Tejpura
.   Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (At Present
    Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand).
                                                                ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                               ----Respondent
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2958/2021
Pema Ram S/o Rata Lal, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Keshavnagr,
Pipali Acharyan, Police Station Kankroli District Rajsamand. (At
Present Lodged In District Jail, Rajsamand).
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                               ----Respondent
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2959/2021
Kishanlal S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 27 Years, Banjara Basti,
Tejpura, Police Station Kankroli, District Rajsamand. (At Present
Lodged In District Jail Rajsamand).
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

                   (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 08:57:55 PM)
                                        (2 of 4)                         [CRLMB-3384/2021]


                                                                    ----Respondent
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2960/2021
Chandu S/o Bihari, Aged About 37 Years, Bhamakheda, Chtraji
Ka Kheda, Police Station Relmagra, District Rajsamand. (At
Present Lodged In District Jail, Rajsamand).
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
                                 Mr. Chandrasen Rathore
                                 Mr. Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order 10/03/2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.12/2019 of Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police have recovered 100 gms. of opium and 70 kgs. of poppy strw from the Bolero Car and 60 kgs. of poppy straw from the Eco-Maruti Suzuki Car. It is alleged that petitioners Rajmal and Chandu were in the Bolero Car whereas, peititoners Mahesh and Pema Ram were in the Eco-Maruti Suzuki Car. It is also submitted that allegation against the petitioner (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 08:57:55 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3384/2021] Kishan lal is to the effect that he has supplied the said narcotic contraband to the other petitioners. Learned counsels for the petitioners have invited my attention towards the recovery memo and argued that as per the recovery memo, prepared by the police, five bags containing poppy straw weighing 70 kgs. were recovered from the Bolero Car whereas, four bags containing poppy straw weighing 60 kgs. were recovered from the Eco-Maruti Suzuki Car. It is submitted that the Seizure Officer has not taken out separte samples form the each bag filled with poppy straw but has taken out 500 gms. of samples from each bag and thereafter mixed it and taken out sample. Learned counsel for the petiitoners have also invited my attention towards the statements of PW-1 Seizure Officer, who in his statements has also stated that he has taken out 500 gms. of poppy straw from each bag and after mixing the same taken out the sample. Thus, it is clear that the Seizure Officer did not collect separate samples from each bag. It is also submitted that the I.O. has not stated that the test by the U.N. Kit was carried out on each bag before taking small quantity of poppy husk for samples.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 has argued that this Court has held that if the samples from each bag containing poppy husk/poppy straw have not been collected and test by U.N.Kit has not been conducted on each bag and if the Seizure Officer has taken out some quantity of narcotic drug from each bag and after mixing the same has taken out some portion for sample, then, the same is not in conformity with the Standing Instruction No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New (Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 08:57:55 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3384/2021] Delhi, particularly, Instruction No.1.7 and, as such, it cannot be said that the narcotic contraband recovered in the matter is of commercial quantity or above. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, substantial grounds taken in this bail application, taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Netram's case (supra) and keeping in view the fact that trial of the case is likely to take time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Mahesh S/o Narayan Lal Prajapat, Rajmal @ Raju S/o Shri Mangilal, Chandmal S/o Shri Kishanlal, Pema Ram S/o Rata Lal, Kishanlal S/o Shri Mangilal and Chandu S/o Bihari shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.12/2019 of Police Station Kelwa, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 56-Taruna/-

(Downloaded on 10/03/2021 at 08:57:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)