Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chokha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 2021
Author: Devendra Kachhawaha
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9054/2021. Chokha Ram S/o Sh. Jalaram, Age-42 years, R/o Vinayakpura (Bhawad), P.S. Karwad District Jodhpur.
(Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, Raisinghnagar).
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.L. Rawla.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 13/09/2021 The instant bail application has been preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) No. 286/2019, Police Station Jetsar, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Joshi assisted by the learned counsel Mr. D.L. Rawla appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner stated that as per prosecution, the seizure proceedings were conducted on 09.09.2019 and one of the accused Gopi Ram ran away from the place of occurrence; that the recovery of the contraband in question was made from the accused Suresh @ Sukha; that the present accused-petitioner has (Downloaded on 13/09/2021 at 08:57:59 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9054/2021] wrongly been implicated in this case on the statement of the co- accused; that there is no other evidence available with the prosecution to connect the present accused-petitioner with the alleged crime, except the statement of the co-accused, therefore, benefit of bail may kindly be granted in favour of the accused- petitioner.
In support of his case, learned Senior Advocate, while referring and relying upon the following judgments, stated that in identical situation, benefit of bail has been granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as this Court :-
(1) In the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1;
(2) In the case of Sunil @ Sonu S/o Hetram Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bail Application No. 6623/2021, decided on 19.07.2021);
(3) In the case of Papinder @ Kalu S/o Subhash Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bail Application No. 3358/2021, decided on 29.07.2021);
(4) In the case of Jitendra Bishnoi @ Jitu S/o Balkrishna Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bail Application No. 9821/2021, decided on 27.08.2021); and (5) In the case of Sudheer Bishnoi S/o Bhupsingh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bail Application No. 9822/2021, decided on 27.08.2021).
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that apart from the statement of the co-accused, call detail report in regard to the accused-petitioner along with the requisite Certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act (Downloaded on 13/09/2021 at 08:57:59 PM) (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9054/2021] as well as copy of the application form duly filled and signed by the accused-petitioner for issuance of the sim from the mobile company Jio Reliance are available with the prosecution and, therefore, looking to the prima facie involvement of the accused- petitioner in the present case, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
In reply, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner stated that the call detail report has not been obtained by the prosecution for the period soon or before the date of seizure of the contraband in question and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by collecting call detail report in regard to the accused-petitioner.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having scanned through the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner deserves to be rejected.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly to the facts that there is call detail report along with the requisite Certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act as well as the application form of the accused- petitioner for issuance of a sim of the Jio Company are available with the prosecution at this stage, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence available against the petitioner except the statement of the co-accused. Simply because the call detail report has not been procured by the investigating agency and could not be related to the date of seizure or day before the seizure (Downloaded on 13/09/2021 at 08:57:59 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9054/2021] proceedings, it cannot be said at this stage that the accused- petitioner has no connection with the co-accused Gopi Ram and Suresh @ Sukha and has wrongly been implicated in this case by the Investigating Officer.
In view of the discussion foregoing and having regard to the ratio laid by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court in the cases referred hereinabove, in the opinion of this Court, the accused-petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of bail at this stage in the present case.
Resultantly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Chokha Ram S/o Jalaram, is rejected.
However, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the statement of the Investigating Officer.
The concerned Trial Court is directed to record the statement of the Investigating Officer soon after the statement of the Seizure Officer or any other responsible Member of the Seizure Party, who has taken effective part in the seizure proceedings.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 12-Mohan/-
(Downloaded on 13/09/2021 at 08:57:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)