Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ranjeet Dhakad vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 5023/2021
Ranjeet Dhakad S/o Sh. Gheesalal Dhakad, Aged About 27
Years, Rayta, P.s. Bengu, District Chittorgarh (Raj.). (Presently
Lodged At Jail Bhilwara).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Jyani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
13/07/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR
No.243/2018 of Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara for
the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 8/15 and 8/25
of the NDPS Act. He/she/they has/have preferred
this/these forth bail application(s) under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
as per the prosecution story, 283 kg 700 gm of poppy
husk was recovered by the police from a tempo, which
was allegedly driven by co-accused Dashrath and co-
accused Jagdeep accompanied him. It is further
submitted that it is mentioned in the charge-sheet that at
the time when the police stopped the vehicle, the driver
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5023/2021]
of the vehicle Dashrath fled away from the scene of
crime, however, co-accused Jagdeep was apprehended by
the police with the narcotic contraband. It is further
submitted that the police during the course of
investigation have concluded that the tempo, which was
seized is owned by the petitioner. It is also stated in the
charge-sheet that though the registered owner of the
tempo was Kamlesh, but as per agreement to sale
Ex.P/8, the petitioner had purchased the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the petitioner has not purchased the said tempo from
Kamlesh, however, the police have fabricated the alleged
agreement to sale, said to have been executed by
Kamlesh in favour of the petitioner. It is also agued that
even if it is assumed that the petitioner is the owner of
the said tempo but the police have failed to collect any
evidence to the effect that co-accused Dashrath and
Jagdeep were transporting the narcotic contraband with
the consent, permission or knowledge of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
from the statements of the I.O. namely Rajesh Kumar
(PW-1), it is clear that notice under Section 133 and 134
of the Motor Vehicles Act was not given to the petitioner
nor any document regarding his ownership was collected
by the police. It is further argued that the said witness
himself, in his evidence, has not deposed that the co-
accused persons Dashrath and Jagdeep were transporting
the narcotic contraband in the tempo with the knowledge
of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is in
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-5023/2021]
judicial custody since long and trial of the case is likely to
take time.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application(s).
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 the petitioner(s) under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this/these forth bail application(s) filed
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is directed
that petitioner(s) - Ranjeet Dhakad S/o Sh. Gheesalal
Dhakad shall be released on bail in connection with FIR
No.243/2018 of Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara
provided he/she/they execute(s) 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/her/their 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
127-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
