Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay @ Shree Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7978/2021
Joga Ram S/o Gena Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhana
Magra, Police Station, Singhari District Barmer Presently Lodged
At Barmer District Jail
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7648/2021
Sanjay @ Shree Ram S/o Varinga Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
Nai Band, P.s. Gudamalani Dist. Barmer. (At Present Lodged In
Sub Jail, Bhinmal).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr K.L. Thakur, Mr Kailash Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr Sudhir Tak, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
07/07/2021
These bail applications under sec.439 CrPC have been filed
by petitioners in connection with FIR No.60/2020 registered at
Police Station- Bagoda, District Jalore for offence under Section
8/15 of the NDPS Act and Sec.3/25 of the Arms Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused entire material available on record.
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-7978/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the charge
sheet has been filed and the independent witness Lakh Singh was
in fact brought by the Constable at 12:55PM as is apparent from
the Note dated 29.05.2020, however, his signature are present on
the notice issued under sec.50 of the NDPS Act to the accused at
12:25PM, as is apparent from the challan papers. Learned counsel
submit that even while recording consent of Lakh Singh, the time
recorded is at 1:05PM. Thus, the documents apparently have been
prepared subsequently and while sitting in the Police Station and
can not be relied upon and the petitioners, therefore, deserve to
be granted bail.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Constable
Ramesh Chand was relieved from Police Station Bagoda, District
Jalore at 8:15AM and therefore, his presence at 12:25PM at Pali is
in a cloud of doubts and he could not have reached Pali as was to
first go to the office of ASP Jalore and from there he was to go to
Pali. Thus, the documents clearly suggest that the entire case has
been framed and documents have been prepared later on to
implicate the petitioners.
Learned counsel also relied on a judgment passed by a
coordinate Bench in S.B. Cr. Misc.Bail Application No.6649/2021:
Tara Chand s/o Narayan Lal Dhanker Vs State of Rajasthan,
decided on 10.06.2021, to argue that the FSL did not receive the
samples within 72 hours as required in terms of Standing
Instructions of the Narcotics Control Bureau and since the samples
were handed over after lapse of 72 hours, the petitioners ought to
be given benefit thereto of bail. Learned counsel submit that the
order was passed by the coordinate Bench in earlier bail
applications allowed in the cases-- S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-7978/2021]
No.5428/2021: Jagdish Vs State, S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application
No.5510/2021: ShankerLal Vs State, S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application
No.13337/2020: Kanhaiya Lal Vs State and S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail
Application No.3342/2020: Dinesh @ Rinku Vs State and submit
that this Court ought to take same parity.
Learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, opposed the bail
application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and
recovery of huge quantity, 20 Quintals 70 Kilograms, of Poppy
Husk has been made from the Scorpio, which was being driven by
the accused-petitioner and who was present at the time of
recovery. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the issues raised
by the petitioners would not be relevant with regard to question
whether a person should be granted bail or not at this stage and
would be appropriately answered at the time of trial.
I have considered the submissions.
While this Court is satisfied that the issues raised by the
petitioners may have material aspects, to be examined at the time
of framing of charges/at the time of trial, however, I refrain from
making any observation in relation to the same at this stage as
that would not be of necessary implication at the stage when only
a charge sheet has been filed and statements have not been
recorded before the court.
So far as argument of parity (supra) as raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is concerned, I find with respect that
the coordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail in the
aforesaid case of Tara Chand (supra), did not examine the issue
whether violation of Standing Instructions of NCB would have any
effect on the FSL analysis. Ultimately, in my opinion, while delay in
submitting samples to the FSL later than 72 hours may be
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-7978/2021]
irregularity, the sanctity of FSL report ultimately given would have
no effect. The Standing Instructions of the NCB are advisory in
nature and the same would not give any benefit to an accused
who is found to have been illegally carrying a huge quantity of
contraband material. Granting bail on the said basis, in my
opinion, is of no justification and I, therefore, respectfully differ
from the order passed by the coordinate Bench.
Taking into consideration the huge quantity of Poppy Husk
recovered from the petitioners, I am not inclined to release the
petitioner at this stage.
The bail applications are dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
110-MMA/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
