Narpat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18976 Raj

(1 of 5) [CRLMB-16608/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 16608/2021

Narpat Singh S/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Khirja Aasha, P.S. Shergarh, District Jodhpur. (At Present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 16609/2021 Durag Singh @ Raju Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khinyasriya, P.S. Dechu, Distriot Jodhpur. (At Present lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divakar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

14/12/2021

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 16608/2021:

The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial

custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.174/2021 registered at

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-16608/2021]

Police Station Basni, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under

Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner has

wrongly been implicated in this case only on the statement of co-

accused; except to the statement of co-accused, there is no other

evidence is available against the petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and stated that apart from the statement of co-

accused, there are photographs with the truck and investigation in

regard truck is still pending.

As per page no.17 of the charge-sheet, mobile number

9001642163 belonged to the petitioner and as per page nos. 295-

296 & others, there is call detail report of the said mobile number

is available with other mobile numbers.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the

above call detail report is not related to the date of seizure but to

earlier proceedings.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly to the fact that it is said that except to the information

of co-accused no other evidence is available but it is sufficient to

connect the accused-petitioner at this stage with the alleged

recovered contraband and also the recovered quantity is

commercial quantity, therefore, without expressing any opinion on

the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the accused-petitioner.

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-16608/2021]

Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the

petitioner - Narpat Singh S/o Khangar Singh under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is rejected.

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 16609/2021:

The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial

custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.174/2021 registered at

Police Station Basni, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under

Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that two FIRs were

lodged; one was registered as FIR No.173/2021 on 23.05.2021

and other as FIR No.174/2021 on 24.05.2021; petitioner was

under police custody; as per prosecution, recovery was made from

rented place of the petitioner but no rent deed was obtained by

the concerned seizure officer as well as investigating officer; there

is no statement of landlord or any labourer to support the story of

prosecution. He further stated that there is no evidence that

petitioner is the owner of recovery place and except to the

information given by the petitioner himself, there is no evidence

against the petitioner. Learned counsel also stated that for

commission of offence under Section 27 of the NDPS Act,

possession is necessary otherwise, one cannot be convicted for

the same. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-16608/2021]

by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohd Alam Khan Vs.

Narcotics Control Bureau reported in 1996 LawSuit(SC) 419. With

these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that

benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application and stated that accused petitioner is a habitual

offender and earlier six cases have been registered against the

accused-petitioner out of which two cases are punishable under

the provisions of NDPS Act.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly to the facts that it is admitted that as per prosecution,

recovery place i.e. godown is in ownership of the petitioner Durag

Singh @ Raju Singh S/o Hari Singh and the petitioner was

arrested in case pertaining to the FIR No.173/2021 punishable for

the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act; that the godown was

seized and when that godown was searched by the seizure officer,

1672 kgs poppy straw recovered in 84 bags; that investigation in

regard accused-petitioner, Mehram Dewasi, Mohd. Harun is

pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.; as per CCTV footage and

evidence collected from various toll booths, alleged vehicles were

passed between Narayanpura, Nigdiya etc.; that the facts of the

present case and the facts of the judgment relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioner are different; at this stage, there is

sufficient evidence against the petitioner to connect the accused-

petitioner with the alleged recovered contraband, therefore,

without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the

case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to

the accused-petitioner before recording the statement of

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-16608/2021]

concerned seizure officer and investigating officer before the

learned trial Court.

Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the

petitioner - Durag Singh @ Raju Singh S/o Hari Singh under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

104-105-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)