(1 of 3) [CRLMB-14908/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
14908/2020
Ramdeen Khokhar S/o Shri Mangala Ram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Vill. Tilwasani Ps Bilada Dist. Jodhpur Raj. (Presently
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, N.c.b. Through Special Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 09/04/2021 This second bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC in connection with FIR No.18/2019 registered at Police Station N.C.B., Regional Unit, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1251 and submits that in view of the aforesaid judgment the statement made under Section 67 of the Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of the offence under the NDPS Act and statement made therefore before the officers vested with the power under Section 58 of the NDPS Act will be barred under provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel (Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:35:30 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14908/2020] submits that apart from statement made under Section 67 there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the allegations and therefore the petitioner ought to be released on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that while the statement made by the petitioner may not be held in evidence, still there are other circumstances which connect the petitioner to the persons with whom the contraband was seized. It is stated that there is a proof relating to telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the persons from whom contraband has been seized namely Sampatram as well as the supplier, therefore, it is stated that the petitioner is actively involved in drug peddling and there had been earlier two cases registered against him at M.P. Although the petitioner has been acquitted in one of the case in 2009, the involvement of the petitioner in the present case cannot be doubted. Learned counsel further submits that the statement made under Section 67 and its import shall be examined at the stage of trial and at the stage of bail it need not be taken into consideration.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner however submits that the telephonic conversation which the respondents seek to allege against the petitioner is without any basis. The phone number from which the said telephonic conversation is said to have been done by the petitioner is wholly false. The petitioner's phone number is different and the phone number which is alleged that the petitioner has talked to the other co- accused is different and was not found from his possession.
I have considered the submissions.
(Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:35:30 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-14908/2020] The concerned Sampatram was found carrying 40 KG of opium alleged to have been brought from Assam and the role of the petitioner is alleged to be facilitating him in bringing the said opium from Assam to Rajasthan. The issue requires to be examined at length and at this stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail.
The criminal misc. second bail application is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Arun/170 (Downloaded on 16/04/2021 at 08:35:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)