Rampal vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 2336 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 9545/2020

Rampal S/o Sh. Teja Ram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Ramdawas Khurd, Dangiawas Police Station, Dist. Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

28/01/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

as per the prosecution story, the police have recovered

huge quantity of poppy straw, above commercial quantity

from a house which belongs to the petitioner. It is further

submitted that there is no evidence available on record to

suggest that the house, from where, the alleged recovery

of narcotic contraband has been effected, belongs to the

petitioner only. It is argued that the police have

implicated the petitioner only on the basis of statements

of co-accused - Jugta Ram. Learned counsel for the

petitioner while inviting my attention towards the

statements of Bhanwar Lal (PW-6), the Patwari concerned

and Teja Ram (PW-7), father of the petitioner, has

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9545/2020]

submitted that from the above statements, it is clear that

the house, from where, the alleged narcotic contraband

was recovered, is in joint possession of six persons and

not in the name of petitioner alone. It is, thus, prayed

that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

the bail application and argued that the police were

having prior information that huge quantity of poppy

straw has been transported by the petitioner and the

same is stored in a house where the petitioner resides. It

is also submitted that when the police reached at the

house where the petitioner resides, though he was not

present there, but huge quantity of narcotic contraband

was recovered as per the information. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that it is wrong to say that

the petitioner was not aware about the said narcotic

contraband. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, submitted

that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

petitioner 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 the petitioner on

bail.

Hence, this fourth bail application is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

9-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)