Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pargat Harijan vs State on 29 January, 2018
Author: P.K. Lohra
Bench: P.K. Lohra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 11026 / 2017
Pargat Harijan S/o Sh. Mahnga Ram, B/c Harijan R/o Bhatiawali
Basti Firozpur PS- Kotwali Firozpur District Firozpur- Punjab.
(Presently Lodged in District Jail Chitorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order 29/01/2018 Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.368/2015, registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for offence punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/18 & 25 of the NDPS Act.
First bail application on behalf of petitioner was dismissed on 24th of August, 2017.
Arguing on this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during search and seizure Section 50 of the NDPS Act is flagrantly violated. It is argued by learned counsel that in the notice given to the petitioner under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, Recovery Officer has not adhered to (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11026/2017] Section 50 of the NDPS Act inasmuch as, while issuing notice under the aforesaid provision, no option was given to the petitioner during search and seizure. Learned counsel further submits that flagrant violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has vitiated the entire recovery. In this behalf, learned counsel has also referred to statements of I.O. PW7 Ramniwas. PW7 has admitted in his statements that he never kept abreast the petitioner about option of Gazetted Officer for recovery of the contraband. Learned counsel has further submitted that while drawing samples, poppy straw, which was recovered in the matter, was mixed, and thereafter, two samples were prepared. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr. [(2014) 5 SCC 345] and Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2014 (2) WLN 394 (Raj)]. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that petitioner is in custody since 24th of August, 2015 and there is no other case registered against him under the NDPS Act, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application of petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner by enlarging him on bail.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-11026/2017] Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Pargat Harijan S/o Sh. Mahnga Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.368/2015, Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(P.K. LOHRA)J. Twinkle Singh/