Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs State on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10044/2020
Omprakash S/o Bhomaram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Bishnoi,
R/o Sarno Ki Dhani, Palina, Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged in
District Jail, Jaisalmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1217/2021
Sunil Kumar S/o Baburam Vishnoi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Kanasar, Tehsil Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged at
District Jail, Jaisalmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sunil
Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
03/02/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR
No.11/2019 of Police Station Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s)
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-10044/2020]
8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He/she/they has/have
preferred this/these bail application(s) under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner -
Omprakash has submitted that after rejection of his
earlier bail application, statements of the Investigating
Officers namely Kishan Singh (PW-1) and Kishna Ram
(PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court and
from their evidence, it is clear that no material is
available on record to connect petitioner - Omprakash
with the commission of crime. It is also argued that the
mobile, alleged to have been carried by petitioner - Om
Prakash, at the time of alleged incident, is also not in his
name. It is further submitted that vehicle i.e. Bolero
camper being registration No.RJ-43-GA-1057, from
which, the narcotic contraband has been recovered, was
found by the police in an abandoned condition. It is
further submitted that though, allegation against
petitioner - Om Prakash is to the effect that he was
transporting huge quantity of narcotic contraband in the
aforesaid vehicle, but no evidence is available on record
to the effect that anybody has identified him while
transporting the said narcotic contraband. Learned
counsel has further submitted that petitioner - Om
Prakash is in custody from last around two years and
since trial of the case is likely to take time, he may be
enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner - Om
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-10044/2020]
Prakash and submitted that the police were having prior
information regarding transportation of huge quantity of
poppy straw by him in the above numbered Bolero
camper, however, he broke the 'Nakabandi' and fled away
from the scene of crime by leaving the aforesaid vehicle
in an abandoned condition. It is submitted that the police
found the said vehile from the place of incident and have
also found huge quantity of narcotic contraband poppy
straw therein. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, submitted
that enough material is available on record to connect
petitioner - Om Prakash with the commission of crime. It
is submitted that in view of provisions of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, petitioner - Om Prakash is not entitled to
be enlarged on bail.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner - Om
Prakash son of Bhomaram on bail.
Hence, the bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc.
2nd Bail Application No.10044/2020) preferred on
behalf of petitioner - Om Prakash son of Bhomaram
is dismissed.
So far as petitioner - Sunil Kumar is concerned, it
is submitted by learned counsel that as per the
prosecution story, huge quantity of narcotic contraband
poppy straw was recovered by the police from an
abandoned vehicle, which was allegedly transporting by
co-accused - Om Prakash. It is also submitted that co-
accused - Om Prakash, after his arrest, while in police
custody, gave information to the effect that Sunil Kumar
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-10044/2020]
and other co-accused persons have supplied the said
narcotic contraband to him. It is further submitted that
except the information supplied by co-accused and the
petitioner while in police custody, no other evidence is
available on record to connect petitioner - Sunil Kumar
with the commission of crime. Learned counsel while
inviting my attention towards the statements of
Investigating Officers namely Kishan Singh (PW-1) and
Kishna Ram (PW-2), has submitted that from their
evidence, it is clear that except the information supplied
by co-accused and the confessional statements of the
petitioner recorded while in police custody, no other
evidence is available on record to connect petitioner -
Sunil Kumar with the commission of crime. It is also
argued that it is well settled that the information given by
co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in
evidence.
Learned Pubic Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application preferred on behalf of petitioner - Sunil
Kumar.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and
proper to grant bail to petitioner - Sunil Kumar son of
Baburam Vishnoi under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application (S.B. Criminal
Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.1217/2021) preferred
on behalf of petitioner - Sunil Kumar son of Baburam
Vishnoi under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-10044/2020]
directed that he shall be released on bail in connection
with FIR No.11/2019 of Police Station Mohangarh, District
Jaisalmer provided he executes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties
of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
court for his appearance before that court on each and
every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till the completion of the trial.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
7-8 ms rathore
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
