Ramdeen Khokhar S/O Shri Mangala ... vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 2329 Raj/2

                                   (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

(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.

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)