Dinesh Kumar Prajapat S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6601 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 6458/2021

Dinesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat r/o Jaloliya
Kalu Khdea Tehsil and Police Station Chhoti Sadri District
Pratapgarh.
(At present confined in sub-jail, Nasirabad Ajmer).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. A.K. Upman.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Arvind Kumar, PP.


                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
                             Order

17/11/2021

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.

283/2018 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar District

Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

2. It is transpired from the record that the first application of

the petitioner came to be dismissed on 05.10.2018, thereafter

second application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court on 07.01.2019. The bail plea of Lalit was dismissed by the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.09.2020 and the second

bail application of accused Lalit is pending yet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has

nothing to do with the alleged offence and falsely been implicated

in this matter. He contends that there is no evidence suggesting

that petitioner was present in the vehicle at the place where the

alleged recovery was made; he asserts that in fact he was far

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-6458/2021]

away from the place of alleged recovery. He is innocent and in

custody since 05.09.2018. He further submits that in view of the

recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding release

of accused where the trial has been protracted for a long, the

indefinite incarceration of the petitioner would not be justifiable as

the same is violative of his fundamental right guaranteed by

Article 21 of Constitution of India. He drew attention of this Court

towards some order-sheets of the learned trial Court, the last

order-sheet dated 10.02.2021 reflects that Presiding Officer was

not present and the case was posted for want of prosecution

evidence on 07.04.2021. It is prayed that the petitioner may be

directed to be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail and contended that the petitioner has not placed on

record the entire order-sheets so that the progress of the trial

could be examined properly. He contends that the Police party on

31.08.2018 intercepted a white Bolero Camper bearing

registration No. RJ-09-GB0532 on a highway. Three persons were

there in the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by the accused

Dinesh Prajapat s/o Shri Shiv Lal Prajapat, aged 21 years r/o

Godawari Basti, near Government School Chhoti Sadri District

Pratapgarh. The other persons sitting by the side of the driver was

Khemraj s/o Balram Kumawat r/o Basedi Kundal Police Station

Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh and the third was Lalit Singh

Mehta s/o Sh. Nandlal r/o Pratap Chowk, Chhoti Sadri, District

Pratapgarh. Upon checking of the vehicle a total 308.300 kg poppy

husk came to be recovered from that vehicle, the accused were

arrested at the spot. During the course of the investigation, the

said three accused who were arrested from the spot disclosed in

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-6458/2021]

their interrogation note that the present petitioner namely Dinesh

Prajapat s/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat was also involved in the

commission of crime, accordingly with the add of Section 29 of

NDPS Act; the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted and the

trial is going on but no witness has been examined yet.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the bail

application vehemently submitted that two bail applications of the

petitioner have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court, therefore the petitioner is not entitle to be enlarged on bail.

The learned State Counsel has not been able to show any piece of

evidence which is legally admissible and can relate the accused

with the crime.

6. Heard and minutely perused the record of the case as made

available by the counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the

petitioner was not the same person who was found in that vehicle

from which huge quantity of contraband came to be recovered. It

is a case of the prosecution that upon interrogation from the three

who were apprehended at the spot; it was revealed that the

present applicant handed over the vehicle to them. As a matter of

fact nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. He has been

booked in this matter simply on the basis of the so-called

confessional statement of the co-accused persons made by them

to police officers during the custody; evidentiary value of which

might be debatable at this stage. The submissions made by the

counsel for the petitioner that there is no legally admissible

evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident,

requires serious consideration.

7. As far as the question of limitation contained in Section 37 of

the NDPS Act is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor has been

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-6458/2021]

given ample opportunity to protest, however he could not

controvert the submissions canvassed by the petitioner regarding

availability of cogent admissible evidence.

8. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was arrested in the month

of September, 2018 till date not a single prosecution witness could

have been examined and the witnesses projected by the

prosecution in the charge-sheet are 21 in number. Suffice it would

be to say that still the trial would likely to take a long time to

conclude. In these facts and circumstances of the case more

particularly the long incarceration of the petitioner in jail without

trial and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court

regarding speedy disposal of the trial and considering the

submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I deem it proper

to grant bail to the accused petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Prajapat S/o

Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat r/o Jaloliya Kalu Khdea Tehsil and Police

Station Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh.

9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Dinesh

Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat r/o Jaloliya

Kalu Khdea Tehsil and Police Station Chhoti Sadri District

Pratapgarh shall be enlarged on bail if he is not required in any

other case provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before

the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called

upon to do so.

10. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are

limited to the extent of disposal of the present bail application and

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-6458/2021]

the same would not in any way affect the merits of the case in the

trial.

(FARJAND ALI),J

PREETI VALECHA /01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)