Ramesh Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6240 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5268/2020

Ramesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Mahiram Bishnoi, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Village Pali II, Tehsil Osian Distt. Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

02/03/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR

No.22/2020 of Police Station Matoda, for the offences punishable

under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act. He has preferred this anticipatory

bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also

submitted that the police has apprehended co-accused Baburam

son of Dhana Ram from his house alleging that he was in

possession of 7 kgs of poppy straw. It is also submitted that the

petitioner is in no way connected with the commission of crime

and the police has tried to implicate him without there being any

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5268/2020]

evidence against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has,

therefore, submitted that it is a case of no evidence, hence, the

petitioner may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

bail application and submitted that after arrest of co-accused

Baburam son of Dhana Ram he gave information that he had

procured the narcotic contraband from the petitioner. It is argued

that during the course of investigation, the police has collected the

call details which suggest that there was constant conversation

between the petitioner and the co-accused Baburam on telephone.

Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submitted that for the

purpose of further examination the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is necessary, hence, he is not entitled for the benefit of

anticipatory bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

77-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)