Gaje Singh vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5457 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 8362/2021

Gaje Singh S/o Chhoga Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, Hanumangarh Finch Police Station Luni Dis. Jodhpur At Present Dis. Jail Chittorgarh

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khilery For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P. P.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

12/04/2022

1. The present second bail application has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 with the prayer that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

2. Petitioner's first bail application was rejected by this Court on

03.06.2020, while giving him a liberty to file a fresh one, after the

statements of Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer are

recorded.

3. Mr. Khilery, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

statement of Seizure Officer has been recorded.

4. While fairly pointing out that the evidence of Investigating

Officer has not been recorded, learned counsel submits that on

the basis of statement, more particularly cross-examination of

Seizure Officer, various infirmities and non-compliance of

mandatory statutory provisions such as Sections 42 and 50 of

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8362/2021]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'NDPS Act') is proved.

5. Learned counsel relied upon provisions of Sections 42 and 50

of the NDPS Act and various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme

Court and this Court, and submitted that prosecution has failed to

observe the mandate of statutory provisions and thus, the

petitioner is bound to be acquitted of the offence alleged against

him.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioner, statutory provisions, statement of

Seizure Officer and other witnesses, i.e. PW.1 and PW.2, so also

the material made available on record.

7. Maybe the petitioner is having an arguable case so far as

non-observance of the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the

NDPS Act and non-compliance of standing Order No.188 is

concerned. But, this Court cannot remain oblivious of provisions of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which enjoins upon the Court dealing

with the bail application of the accused to record a satisfaction

that the petitioner is not involved in the offence alleged.

8. All the arguments that have been advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner may have substance, and may perhaps

lead to petitioner's acquittal after appreciation of ocular and

documentary evidence and in light of the judgments cited, but no

finding at this stage can be recorded that the petitioner is not

involved in the offence.

9. Be that as it may.

10. At this juncture, learned counsel submits that out of 19

witnesses, list whereof has been given by the prosecution,

statements of only two witnesses have been recorded and the trial

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8362/2021]

of the case will take sufficient time and considering that the

petitioner is having a strong case for acquittal, at least a direction

be issued to the trial Court to decide petitioner's case

expeditiously.

11. Without finally pronouncing upon petitioner's contentions and

grounds, this Court prima-facie feels that there are certain

lacunae in the procedure of taking of sample and lapse in

observance of statutory provisions contained in Section 42 and 50

of NDPS Act. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the

trial Court to complete the trial as early as possible, preferably

within a period of one year from today.

12. With these observations, the second bail application is

dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 120-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)