Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jasraj @ Jaswant vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 June, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta Judge)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6892/2021
Jasraj @ Jaswant S/o Dhanraj, Aged About 35 Years, Nachana,
P.s. Nachana, Dist. Jaisalmer. (At Present Central Jail Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Mayank (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali, G.A.-cum-A.A.G.
Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA (VACATION JUDGE)
Judgment
08/06/2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
Shri Purohit, learned senior counsel representing the
petitioner vehemently and fervently contends that the entire
prosecution case is false and fabricated. The premises in question
from where the contraband opium was recovered does not belong
to the present petitioner. The petitioner is having excise vend
license for Nachana continuously for the last five years. He has
been framed in this case due to business rivalry. He was called to
the place of incident by the SHO PS Nachana and has been falsely
roped into the case by allegedly showing the recovery to have
been effected from the premises owned by the petitioner.
whereas, the petitioner is in no manner connected with the house
in question. He thus urges that the petitioner deserves indulgence
of bail in this case.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-6892/2021]
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed
the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He urges
that the house in question was searched on the basis of a prior
information. The search proceedings took place at about 10:00
pm. The petitioner was present inside the house. On seeing the
police party, he tried to escape but was apprehended at the spot.
When the house was searched, opium weighing 2.580 Kgs. was
recovered which is above commercial quantity. He thus, urges that
the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly
apply and hence, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of
bail.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and have gone through the case diary.
Ex-facie, for the present there is sufficient material on record
of the case to satisfy the Court that recovery of contraband opium
weighing more than commercial quantity was effected from the
premises in which the petitioner was present. The petitioner is a
signatory to the seizure memo and hence, at this stage, it would
be futile to accept the contention of the petitioner's counsel that
the house in question was not owned/was not in possession of the
present petitioner. As the recovered contraband weighs above
commercial quantity, the restrictions contained in Section 37 of
the NDPS Act operate against the petitioner. Hence, he does not
deserve indulgence of bail. Accordingly, the instant application for
bail is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(SANDEEP MEHTA ),VJ
10-Sudhir Asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
