Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ranji vs State on 18 May, 2021

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

(1 of 6) [CRLMB-5304/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5304/2021

Ranji S/o Sh. Narhing, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Gairchiya Bhatda, Tehsil Kusalgarh, District Banswara (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Banswara).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore (on VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

18/05/2021

In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the

Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being

maintained for the safety of all concerned.

This Court perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.129/2021 of Police Station Kusalgarh, District Banswara for the

offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. He has

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

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred

to the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRLMB

No.4007/2021 (Bhagirath Ram Vs. State decided on

01.04.2021), which reads as under:

(2 of 6) [CRLMB-5304/2021]

"The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Hardasram, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.71/2021, Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur, for the offence under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The petitioner was apprehended with an allegation of cultivating 386 opium plants in his agricultural field. The offence alleged is punishable under Section 18 (c) of the NDPS Act with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years. Thus, restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not operate against the petitioner. As per the case diary, no other case under the NDPS Act has previously been registered against the petitioner. Investigation and trial are likely to consume time.

In view of above and having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Hardasram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.71/2021, Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."

He has also referred to the order passed by this Court in

CRLMB No.5837/2021 (Deraj Ram Vs. State decided on

05.05.2021), which also reads as under:

"In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being maintained for the safety of all concerned.

(3 of 6) [CRLMB-5304/2021]

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.31/2021 of Police Station Sarwana, District Jalore for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 & 18 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the order dated 1.4.2021 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.4007/2021, which reads as follows :-

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(4 of 6) [CRLMB-5304/2021]

to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."

Learned P.P. opposes the bail application but is unable to distinguish anything from the aforesaid judgment.

This Court takes note of the fact that in the present case, there are 293 opium plants whereas in the aforesaid case, there were 386 opium plants and other position regarding law is similar. Though in the humble opinion of this Court, the Union of India has to take a stand regarding plants and for which an order has been passed by which, learned ASG Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit was directed to file affidavit, which is yet to come. However, custody of the petitioner at this stage when the covid situation is aggravated and also the aforesaid judgment is there for consideration of this Court, is not warranted.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Deraj Ram S/o Sh. Himmta Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.31/2021 of Police Station Sarwana, District Jalore provided he executes a personal bond in a 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 appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

However, this Court is awaiting the affidavit of Union of India whereby further consideration on the law point shall be made."

Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, pointed out

that the 632 plants (contraband in question) were recovered, and

as per the electronic weighing machine, the contraband in

question weighed 59.62 kg.

                                      (5 of 6)                      [CRLMB-5304/2021]


     Learned    Public     Prosecutor           though          opposes   the   bail

application, but is unable to distinguish this case from the order

passed by this Hon'ble Court in Bhagirath Ram (supra).

This Court, in the case of Deraj Ram (supra), has already

called for the explanation from the Union of India through Mr.

Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned A.S.G., regarding its stand in the

cases where large quantity of plants (contraband) were recovered,

so as to assist this Court regarding the consequences of plants

(contraband) having been recovered, and Section 18(c) vis-a-vis

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but the requisite response is still

awaited.

However, for want of necessary assistance at this stage, this

Court does not want to prolong the custody of the petitioner, as