Virendra Singh S/O Shri Surendra ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3861 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                                6756/2021

Virendra Singh S/o Shri Surendra Singh, R/o House No. 202,
Ward No. 8 Duri Bardwal Ps Duri Dist. Sangrur Punjab (At
Present Confined In Dist. Jail Dausa)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                          Judgment / Order

18/08/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.291/2019 was registered at Police Station Nangal

Rajavtan, District Dausa for offence under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of

NDPS Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that after

rejection of the first bail on 03.11.2020. Statement of the Seizure

Officer has been recorded and he has stated that the car which

was being driven by the petitioner overturned. It is a case of

prosecution that 114 kgs poppy straw was recovered from eight

bags. It is also contended that only two samples were drawn. It is

further contended that the seal was destroyed on 30.10.2019,

however, later on, the same seal was affixed in a document. It is

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6756/2021]

also contended that the weight of the contraband at the time of

recovery was 114 kgs, but when it went before the Magistrate, it

turned out to be 115 kgs. It is further contended that there is

delay of 19 days in sending the samples. The sample was handed

over to police personnel on 18.11.2019 but was received by the

FSL on 21.11.2019. No justification is available for sending the

samples after an inordinate delay. It is also contended that no

independent witness has been made in this case and only police

personnel were made witnesses who made the recovery. It is

further contended that the entire proceedings were completed

within 45 minutes which goes to show that the proceedings were

not made at the spot, but were made at the police station. It is

also contended that the Seizure Officer was aware that contraband

was in vehicle and still he gave an option that the search can be

made by him.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application. It is contended that the matter pertains to commercial

quantity.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Taking note of the facts that the case of the prosecution is

that the vehicle did not stop at the barriers kept by the police and

fled away from the place. On chase, the vehicle overturned and

went over a divider. It is also contended that the Seizure Officer

thought that petitioner was carrying some illegal articles and

therefore, he gave the option for searching the vehicle. From the

perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was found

in possession of the contraband which happens to be the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6756/2021]

commercial quantity. The difference of weight and the other

technical objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner cannot

be taken note of, as Section 37 of the NDPS Act puts a rider in

grant of bail in cases of commercial quantity. The fact that

petitioner's vehicle overturned is not disputed by counsel for the

petitioner. It is not possible for the police to implicate the

petitioner when there is no enmity of him with the police.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State and the above noted facts, I am not inclined to allow the

second bail application.

8. This second bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

Nikhil Kr. Yadav / 21

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)