Hari Shankar Meena S/O Shambhu Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3941 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                                8563/2021

Hari Shankar Meena S/o Shambhu Lal Meena, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 5, Dharupura, Badodiya Kalan,
Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajveer Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                          Judgment / Order

24/08/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.258/2020 was registered at Police Station,

Anantpura, District Kota for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS

Act.

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

petitioner is not named in the FIR. As per the FIR, the recovery

was effected from a godown which was allegedly taken on rent by

Kalu Gurjar and Raju Gurjar. It is also contended that in

interrogation of Kalu Garjar, he has stated that he was working in

partnership with the present petitioner. It is further contended

that statement of co-accused cannot be considered. It is also

contended that there is no material to establish that petitioner was

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-8563/2021]

working in partnership with Kalu Gurjar.

4. Reliance has placed on various judgments in this regard.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. It

is contended that the matter pertains to commercial quantity of

contraband. Section 37 of NDPS Act would come in play. Warrant

has been issued against the petitioner under Section 37 of the

Police Act, it cannot be inferred that petitioner is innocent.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Taking note of the fact that the recovered contraband is

commercial quantity and the person who has taken the godown on

rent has stated that petitioner was working in partnership at this

stage it cannot be said that petitioner is innocent so as to give the

benefit of anticipatory bail. Further warrants have already been

issued under Section 37 of the Police Act, hence, I am not inclined

to entertain the anticipatory bail application.

8. The Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)