Ranjeet vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11377 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3194/2021

Ranjeet S/o Dharam Chand Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kitlana P.s. Sadar Bhiwani District Haryana. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh).

                                                                        ----Petitioner

                                      Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Jugbir Singh Boora
                                 Mr. Vishal Singhal
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                             Judgment / Order

23/07/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 31/2018 of Police

Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh for the offences

punishable under Sections 8/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He has

preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

This is the fourth bail application preferred on behalf of the

petitioner. Earlier three bail applications of the petitioner have been

dismissed as not pressed while granting some liberty to him to

approach the trial court after certain stages.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the

prosecution story, two persons namely Rajesh Kumar and Akash were

apprehended by the police while they were transporting huge qunatity

of opium i.e. 8 kg 500 gms, which is above commercial quantity, in a

Chevrolet Captiva car bearing Registration No. DL-9-CT-1389. It is

submitted that those persons, while in police custody, have supplied

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-3194/2021]

information to the police under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to

the effect that the said narcotic contraband was supplied to them by

one Paramveer Singh @ Happy and the said narcotic contraband was

supposed to be delivered to the petitoner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that except the said information supplied by

co-accused persons while in police custody, no other evidence is

available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of

crime. It is further submitted that at the time, when co-accused persons

namely Rajesh and Akash were apprehended by the police on

28.01.2018, the petitioner was admittedly confined in District Jail

Bhiwani in another criminal case. It is submitted that the police have

failed to collect any sort of evidence such as call details or mobile

conversations between the petitioner and other co-accused persons,

who were arrested while transporting the narcotic contraband. It is,

therefore, submitted that except the information supplied by co-accused

persons while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record

and it is well settled that any information supplied by co-accused

persons while in police custody is not admissible in evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitoner has invited my attention

towards the statements of prosecution witnesses such as PWs- 9, 10,

11 and 14, who are police officials; one of them is the Seizure Officer

whereas another is the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel has

argued that from the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses, it is

clear that except the information supplied by co-accused persons, no

other evidence is available against the petitioner.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned counsel for the

petitoner has prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on

bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and

argued that from the perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-3194/2021]

evidence of the prosecution witnessess, it is clear that prima facie

evidence of involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime is

available on record. It is further argued that in view of the provisions of

Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on

bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner was in jail in the State of

Haryana in relation to the similar kind of offence and from that, it can

very well be assumed that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved

in smuggling of the narcotic contraband and, as such, he is not entitled

to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the

case, after going through the material available on record and taking

into consideration the fact that huge quantity of opium, which is above

commercial quantity have been recovered in the matter, I am not

inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly the bail application preferred by the petitioner under

Section 439 CrPC is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/143-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)