Kacharu Lal vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 9598 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4871/2021

Kacharu Lal S/o Chhagan Lal Baori, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ambav, Pipaliya Mandi Police Station, Dist. Mandsaur (Mp). (Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bishnoi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

27/05/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

material available on record.

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection

with FIR No.679/2011, Police Station Nimbahera Kotwali, District

Chittorgarh, for the offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that one

Munna Ram was apprehended by the Police, who was in

possession of the contraband, charge-sheet was filed against him

and investigation was kept pending against the applicant under

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The said Munna Ram was ultimately

convicted by the trial court by its judgment dated 04.05.2016,

against which, appeal is pending consideration before the Court,

wherein, his sentence has been suspended by order dated

03.08.2018.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4871/2021]

Now, the applicant has been apprehended and charge-sheet

has been filed against him.

It is submitted that the entire allegation against the applicant

is based on the statement of convict Munna Ram, wherein, he

indicated that he had purchased the contraband from the

applicant.

It is submitted that in the charge-sheet indications have

been made that from the call details of Munna Ram and the

applicant, there was communication between them before the

incident.

Learned counsel for the applicant made reference to the

statement of the seizure officer (PW-11) in the trial against Munna

Ram, wherein, he had made reference regarding the co-accused

indicating that the goods were procured from the applicant.

PW-14, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination

indicated that the mobile numbers of the applicant were indicated

by Munna Ram and regarding his mobile number the investigating

officer did not contact the mobile company as he was transferred.

It is submitted that the certificate under Section 65-B

Evidence Act, 1872 is not available and, therefore, the entire

allegation against the applicant is based on either the statement

of the co-accused and/or the purported call details, both of which

are inadmissible in evidence.

Further submissions have been made that even as per

provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ('the Act') the

applicant is entitled to bail.

Submissions have been made that the applicant is in custody

since 08.03.2021 and the trial is likely to take time and, therefore,

he may be enlarged on bail.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4871/2021]

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

I have considered the submissions and have gone through

the statements of the investigating officer & the seizure officer as

recorded in the case of Munna Ram as well as the charge-sheet.

Admittedly, the case against the applicant is based on the

statement of Munna Ram and the call details, wherein, the

certificate under Section 65-B is missing.

In view of the above fact situation, this Court is satisfied that

conditions under Section 37 of the Act do exist in the matter and

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

Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the

applicant deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered

that the accused-applicant -Kacharu Lal S/o Chhagan Lal

Baori arrested in connection with FIR No.679/2011, Police Station

Nimbahera Kotwali, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail;

provided he furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand Only) 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.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 4-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)