Parmeshwar vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 5332 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 3313/2022

Parmeshwar S/o Daulal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Flat No. 125A, Joly Nagar- Iii, Gd Somani Marg, Cuff Parel, Mumbai At Present E-187, Shastri Nagar, Behind Cox Kutir, Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Kotwani Mr. Swati Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. BP Bohra

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

11/04/2022 The present 4th bail application has been filed under Section

439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in

connection with F.I.R. No. DRI/DZU/JRU/19/INT-4/2016 dated

26.04.2017, Police Station Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for

the offences punishable under Sections 9(A), 22(c), 23(c), 25,

25(A), 27(A), 29 read with 2,8,8(A) of NDPS Act and Rules 53(A),

64 (A), 65 (A), 66 and 67 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

after rejection of the 3rd bail application on 17.01.2020, the bail

applications of co-accused Anil S/o Nanakram has been allowed

vide order dated 03.03.2022 and co-accused Gunjan Dudani vide

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-3313/2022]

order dated 14.01.2022 by the co-ordinate bench of this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the

statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS

Act, there is no clinching evidence to connect the present

petitioner with the recovery of the contraband in this case. He

further submits that case of the petitioner stands on a better

footing than the co-accused persons Anil and Gunjan Dudani who

have been released by the co-ordinate bench of this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was a Chartered Accountant/Consultant to the principal accused

Subhash Dudani and his Company. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither present at the

factory premises nor any recovery of the contraband articles have

been made from the present petitioner. Therefore, he prays that

the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned special public prosecutor after filing a

detailed reply, has submitted that there is a huge recovery of

contraband in the present case and therefore, the petitioner

should not be enlarged on bail as the same will give a wrong

message to the society. He further submits that the present

petitioner is not a Chartered Accountant/Consultant of Subhash

Dudani rather he was a close business associate of the deceased

Subhash Dudani.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the requisite documents as well as the orders passed in

the cases of co-accused Gunjan Dudani and Anil Malkani. The fact

that the petitioner was not present at the factory premises/the

place from where the recovery of the contraband drugs was made,

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-3313/2022]

is established from the charge sheet filed before the competent

court. Merely because the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant or

Consultant of the Late Subhash Dudani, unless there is any

clinching incriminating material on record to show the connectivity

of the petitioner with the recovery of contraband in the case, it

cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the business of

drug trafficking in this case. The learned special counsel is unable

to distinguish the case of the present petitioner with the co-

accused persons Anil Malkani and Gunjan Dudani (who was the

son of the late Subhash Dudani). The co-accused Anil and Gunjan

of the case has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate bench of

this court vide orders dated 03.03.2022 and 14.01.2022

respectively after the detailed judgments. Thus, the case of the

present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of co-

accused Anil Malkani and Gunjan Dudani. It is also noted that one

more co-accused Atul Dilip Mhatre who was a Chemical Engineer

rendering his assistance to the company/firm of Subhash Dudani

has also been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated

15.03.2018. It is also a fact that the statement of the co-accused

recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot form a sole

basis of the conviction in view of the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of

the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner

deserves to be accepted.

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3313/2022]

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner

Parmeshwar S/o Daulal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.

DRI/DZU/JRU/19/INT-4/2016 dated 26.04.2017, Police Station

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence shall be released on bail;

provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees: One Lac Only) with two sound and solvent sureties of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 14-KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)