Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12196) on 4 March, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12196]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2274/2025
Suresh S/o Roop Lal Teli, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Atahna, P.s.
Javad, Dist. Neemuch (Mp) (At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail,
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2276/2025
Bheru Singh S/o Bhopal Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 37 Years,
R/o Borkheri, Ward No. 4, Borkheri Kallan Post Javi, Dist. Nimach
(Mp) (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Charan
Mr. Kailash Chandra Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 04/03/2025
1. These applications for bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.64/2023 registered at Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the co- accused persons namely Goverdhan Lal (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd (Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12196] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025] Bail Application No.13803/2023) and Ram Prasad (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8077/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.11.2023 and 01.03.2024, respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the co-accused persons namely Goverdhan Lal and Ram Prasad in the information supplied by them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that they had procured the recovered contraband from the present petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that apart from the disclosure statement of above named co- accused persons, there is nothing on record indicating the involvement of the present petitioners in commission of the alleged crime.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that in the present case, contraband grater than commercial quantity was recovered by the investigating agency, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegation levelled against the present petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons from whose conscious possession contraband greater than commercial (Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12196] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025] quantity was recovered have already been enlarged on bail. However, he was also not in a position to refute the fact that other co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail.
6. The order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to co-accused persons namely Ram Prasad S/o Nirbhaya Ram Dhakar and Pankaj S/o Kalu Lal Dhakad is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
"1. The prayer made in these bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for grant of bail in connection with crime registered pursuant to First Information Report no.64/2023 of Police Station Bhadesar District Chittorgarh in respect of offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 8/15 & 8/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Let me briefly mention the facts germane for disposal of present bail application. That on 18.04.2023, police after having received a secret information laid Nakabandi at Jitwal Road and stopped a pickup vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-44-GA- 2097 which was being driven by Ramprasad Dhakar. Goverdhan was sitting on the seat next to the driver. On search being made, police allegedly recovered 400.370 Kgs of Poppy Straw from the vehicle. Since occupants of the aforesaid vehicle as detailed hereinabove, failed to render plausible explanation qua the possession of commercial quantity of contraband, police after completion of formalities, arrested both of them.
3. To begin at the beginning learned counsel representing both petitioners have fervently argued that applicant was Ramprasad only a driver. Co- accused Goverdhan took his vehicle on hire from the taxi stand. Ramprasad was not the only one sitting in the vehicle but the real owner of the contraband Goverdhan was with him in the vehicle, whom he didn't even know earlier. He had no knowledge about the contraband. Alleged contraband was loaded by Goverdhan and applicant was simply acting on the instruction of goods owner, without knowledge of goods stored in bags.
4. He further argued that, without any fault of the applicant driver, he has been implicated in the matter. He next submitted is that even at the time of search and recovery mandatory provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by Seizure Officer. From the perusal of the recovery memo, it appears that third option was given to the applicant that if he wants, he may give his search to (Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12196] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025] the Seizure Officer as well and personal search of the applicant was also carried out. Undisputedly, the applicant was neither produced before the Magistrate nor before the Gazetted Officer. His search was conducted by the police personnel at the alleged spot of recovery and, therefore, considering the fact that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with entire recovery vitiates.
5. He further argued that entire allegations so leveled by the police against the petitioner is totally false and baseless; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged contraband drug, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be released on bail.
6. Learned counsel representing another petitioner - Pankaj vehemently urged that the petitioner Pankaj has been implicated in the present case merely being the registered owner of the involved vehicle. He was not arrested on the spot with the contraband; that there is no connectivity of any kind between the petitioner - Pankaj and the principal accused Goverdhan; that he has falsely been implicated on the basis of information furnished by co-accused. Except the information furnished by co-accused, there is no substantive evidence against the petitioner to connect with the alleged offence; that neither the petitioner got loaded the contraband in the involved vehicle, which was found under the control of the Goverdhan nor he accompanied the co-accused during the transportation of it; that there is not even an iota of evidence on record to establish any connection between the petitioner - Pankaj and the seized contraband; that petitioner has been arrested after many months of the alleged incident. He further contended that the sole evidence on which prosecution relies upon to prosecute the petitioner is the information of the co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. On the strength of above arguments, he prayed for release of petitioner on bail.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submitted that from the perusal of the recovery memo it appears that provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have been duly complied with in its letter and spirit and, therefore, considering the non-obstante clause of Section 37 of NDPS Act, petitioners should not be released on bail.
8. It is further argued that all factual issues which cannot be addressed at this stage and ought to be determined only after trial. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer had collected overwhelming evidence in the case which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the accused; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency, contraband of commercial quantity have been seized from the (Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12196] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025] accused; that the drug recovered falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. Therefore, petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail.
9. I have mulled upon the arguments advanced by both the parties and have given thoughtful consideration to the material placed on record.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant Ramprasad drove the vehicle on hire at the behest of Goverdhan, acting as a driver and the contraband was being transported in a pickup by Goverdhan himself. Goverdhan himself was present in the vehicle at the time of seizure and contraband was intended to be further supplied by the Goverdhan himself.
11. Another petitioner Pankaj was not found in actual possession of the contraband at the time of recovery; he has been implicated as registered owner of the pick- up vehicle; that only on the basis of information of co- accused, petitioner Pankaj has been arraigned as an accused and such information of the co-accused recorded by a police officer, prima-facie not to be treated relevant for proceeding against any other accused.
12. In this background, I am of the opinion that the restrictions imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied, forasmuch this Court feels that both the applicants have available to them, substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case. The petitioner Ramprasad is in custody since 18.04.2023 and Pankaj is in custody since 17.09.2023. The bail rejection order goes to show that they are not involved in any other case under the N.D.P.S. Act.
13. Therefore, without commenting any further on the merits of the present case as a whole; taking into principles and factors relevant to be considered at the time of deciding bail applications with reference to material placed before me and the fact that the trial is likely to take its own considerable time, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars therefore, both the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.
14. Consequently, both the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners Ram Prasad S/o Nirbhaya Ram Dhakar and Pankaj S/o Kalu Lal Dhakad in F.I.R. No. 64/2023 of Police Station Bhadesar District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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 and if not required by Jail Authorities in any other case. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release and sureties, on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty (Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12196] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2274/2025] amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future."
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co- accused persons from whose conscious possession contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court also prima facie finds that the cases of the present petitioners are not worse from that of above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Suresh S/o Roop Lal Teli and Bheru Singh S/o Bhopal Singh Shaktawat shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.64/2023 registered at Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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 so.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 268-Dinesh/-
(Downloaded on 05/03/2025 at 10:02:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)