Govind vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9470 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5132/2021

Govind S/o Sh. Mangilal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Chamlavada, P.s. Rathanjana, Pratapgarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Pratapgarh).

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

18/05/2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.81/2020 of Police

Station Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh for the offences

punishable under Sections 8 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He has

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per

the prosecution story, the police arrested the co-accused Pappu

while he was transporting 75 kg of poppy straw in a Bolero Pickup.

It is submitted that as per the charge-sheet, the said narcotic

contraband was supplied to the co-accused Pappu by the

petitioner, however, the prosecution has failed to collect any

evidence to this effect that the petitioner had supplied the said

narcotic contraband to the co-accused Papu except the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5132/2021]

confessional statements of the co-accused while in police custody

as well as the confessional statements of the petitioner after his

arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my

attention towards the statements of Investigating Officer PW1

Karna Ram who has specifically stated in his cross-examination

that initially the name of the petitioner was not figured as the co-

accused Pappu had simply stated that he can identify the person,

who had supplied him the said narcotic contraband but had not

disclosed identity of any person. It is further submitted that the

Investigating Officer has also clearly admitted that there was no

independent witness who could state that he saw the petitioner

and the co-accused Pappu together and the call details of both of

them have also not been procured. It is further submitted that in

such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is involved in the

case only on the basis of his confessional statements as well as

statements of the co-accused while in police custody, which is not

an admissible evidence in the eye of law.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I deem 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 Govind S/o Sh.

Mangilal, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR

No.81/2020 of Police Station Rathanjana, District Pratapgarh

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

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-5132/2021]

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.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

18-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)