Rajasthan High Court
Jugnu Malawat S/O Sh. Bhagchand ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
7570/2021
Jugnu Malawat S/o Sh. Bhagchand Malawat, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Plot No. 103-A Radha Krishan Nagar Mangyawas Ps
Mansarovar Jaipur (South) Presently R/o Plot No. 26 Moti Nagar
Gurjar Ki Thadi Ps Shyam Nagar Jaipur Dist. Jaipur South (At
Present Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
8482/2021
Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Shyam Narayan, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village Daulatpura, Post Subhai, Police Station Sadar
Dajipur, District Vaishali, Bihar. At Present Residing At 17-C, Gali
No. 14-A, Phase-3, Near Harsh Property, Jaivihar, Harphool Vihar
Baprola, D C Nangli, South West Delhi- 110043. (At Present
Languishing In Central Jail, Jaipur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal
Mr. Jai Kishan Yagi
For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
Investigating Officer : Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi, S.H.O., P.S.
Vishvakarma, Jaipur West
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
30/07/2021
1. Defects pointed by the registry in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Second Bail Application No. 8482/2021 are waived.
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-7570/2021]
2. Petitioners have filed these second bail applications under
Section 439 Cr.P.C.
3. F.I.R. No.90/2021 was registered at Police Station Harmada,
Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 8/20, 29 & 25 of NDPS
Act.
4. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that the first
bail was rejected on 06.04.2021. Thereafter, charge-sheet has
been filed. While rejecting the first bail, this Court observed that
the contraband was to be delivered to petitioner-Jugnu and mobile
number, whatsApp messages and photographs shared between co-
accused and petitioner-Jugnu pointed towards the factum that
contraband was to be delivered to the petitioner. It is also
contended that two mobiles have been recovered from petitioner-
Jugnu. However, one mobile was in the name of Raees.
Prosecution has not made any effort to trace Raees or record his
statement that he had given his SIM to petitioner-Jugnu. With
regard to the other mobile, it is contended that no whatsApp or
other messages were found in the mobile. It is further contended
that FSL report has not been received as yet to come to the
conclusion that the recovered contraband was Ganja.
5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-Sonu Kumar
that the recovery was effected from three persons. The total
recovery is about 39 kgs and 700 grams and if the same is divided
among three persons, the same would be around 13 kgs for one
person, which is less than commercial quantity. Counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on Roshan Sansi Vs. State of
Rajasthan in Criminal Case No. 3052 of 2020 presided by the
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-7570/2021]
Court on 01.06.2020, wherein bail was granted to the accused
who was booked under Section 8/29 NDPS Act on the ground that
name of the accused was not appearing in the FIR and the
recovery was not effected from him.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these second bail
applications. It is contended that the recovered contraband is
commercial quantity. In the FIR itself, name of petitioner-Jugnu is
appearing. From the charge-sheet, it is evident that whatsApp
messages were went from the mobile of the co-accused to
petitioner-Jugnu, but the same were deleted by him, but were
available in the mobile of co-accused. It is also contended that it is
made out from the charge-sheet that petitioner-Jugnu was to
receive the contraband. The matter pertains to commercial
quantity and bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act apply. It is further
contended that at the time of rejection of the first bail, the merits
of the case were considered.
7. I have considered the contentions.
8. The case of Roshan Sansi Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra)
has no applicability to the facts of this case as in the present case,
name of petitioner-Jugnu is appearing in the FIR itself and there
are messages shared by the co-accused with the petitioner-Jugnu
which have pointed out to his involvement in this case. The matter
pertains to commercial quantity. This Court at this stage cannot
come to the conclusion that petitioners are not guilty of the
offence and that petitioners would not repeat the offence after
granting bail.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-7570/2021]
9. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the
State, I am not inclined to entertain these second bail
applications.
10. These second bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
11. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /8-9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
