Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23572)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:23572) on 23 May, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:23572]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6290/2024

Teja Ram S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village
Pundalu, P.s. Gotan, Dist. Nagaour, Raj. (At Present Lodged In
Sub Jail, Jaitaran)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Mahaveer Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 23/05/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                           Particulars of the Case
     1.     FIR Number                                29/2022
     2.     Concerned Police Station                  Sendra
     3.     District                                  Pali
     4.     Offences alleged in the FIR               Section 8/15 of the NDPS
                                                      Act
     5.     Offences added, if any                    Sections 467, 468 & 471
                                                      of the IPC
     6.     Date of passing of impugned 05.04.2024
            order

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.02.2022 SHO Manoj Kumar and his team during nakabandi intercepted a Car being registration No.RJ06-CD-2968. The driver Rameshwar (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:34:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23572] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6290/2024] Lal and present petitioner Teja Ram tried to escape good but failed to do so. They were interrogated by the SHO whereupon they disclosed their names to be Rameshwar and Tejaram. During search of the vehicle, poppy husk weighing 89.500 Kg (in two gunny bags) was recovered from their possession. Whereafter, the accused were taken into custody. The Seizing Officer took samples at the spot and marked them as 'S-1' TO 'S-2' from the recovered contraband and sent the same to the FSL for its chemical examination. After usual investigation, a case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act has been filed.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that the accused was taken into custody on 12.02.2022 and since then he is behind the bars. Co- accused Suresh Kala and Rameshwar have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.03.2024 and 16.05.2024 passed in SBCRLM 4th Bail Application Nos.773/2024 & 4040/2024 and case of the petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from them. It is further stated that the trial is not going to be culminated and out of total 27 witnesses only three could have been examined, still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the trial, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:34:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23572] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6290/2024] and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that on 12.02.2022 a police team of Police Station Sendra, District Pali apprehended two persons out of which one was the petitioner and the other was Rameshwar for the accusation of having 89.500 Kg Poppy husk.

7. As a matter of fact, the co-accused Rameshwar and Suresh Kala have been granted bail by this Court as stated above thus, the claim of parity cannot be denied both the reason of maintaining judicial discipline and decency as well as for the reason that the case of the petitioner is in no manner distinguishable then to the case of the co-accused who have been granted bail.

8. The another aspect which is legal one would be that the search and seizure was not made in accordance with the procedure established be by law and thus there seems a flagrant volition of mandatory provision of the NDPS Act. In a recent judgment titled as Mohammed Khalid and another Vs. The State of Telangana passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(S). 1610 Of 2023 dated 01.03.2024, it was held that since no proceedings were undertaken for preparing of inventory and drawings of samples as per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, thus, the FSL was considered to be waste and was not considered worthy of being read in evidence on the basis of this inter alia other aspects, Hon'ble the Apex Court acquitted the (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:34:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23572] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6290/2024] appellants of all charges. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is reproduced as under:-

"22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report (Exhibit P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence."

9. In light of the above, the legal and factual position, it is felt that the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come into play in granting bail to the petitioner who is behind the bars for more than last two years. There is high probability that the trial may take further long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 609-Mamta/-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:34:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)