Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 15008 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16122/2022

Om Prakash S/o Sukhveer Singh @ Sukhram, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Bishnoi, R/o Kanwar Ji Ki Khejari, Vill. Tapu, Teh. Osia, Dist. Jodhpur. (Lodged In Sub Jail, Nimbahera).

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaikishan Haniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

20/12/2022

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

Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Om Prakash S/o Sukhveer

Singh @ Sukhram. The petitioner has been arrested in connection

with FIR No. 235/2022 registered at Police Station Nimbahera

Sadar District Chittorgarh for the offence(s) under Section 8/29

NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in the matter only on

account of suspicion. Nothing has been recovered from him. As

per story of the prosecution, the police team apprehended the

accused Kailash Gurjar and Rakesh Meghwal, from whom, the

recovery of contraband is said to have been made. Learned

counsel submits that if at the time of effecting the recovery, the

principal accused would have disclosed regarding the complicity of

the petitioner then it would have been a different situation

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-16122/2022]

because instantaneous and spontaneous disclosure regarding

alleged transaction may come within the premise of doctrine of res

gestae but no such evidence came to light until two days of the

arrest of the principal accused; the alleged disclosure statement

was said to have been made by the principal accused Kailash who

stated to the police regarding involvement of the petitioner, but

except confession, nothing has been recovered or discovered,

therefore, the contents of the said information cannot be taken

into evidence as the same is beyond the arena of Section 27 of

the NDPS Act. He strongly places reliance upon the judgment

passed by Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya &

Others Vs. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) and thus, submits that

since nothing is recovered or discovered, the said confession

cannot be taken as an admissible piece of evidence. It is further

submitted that except the confession aforesaid, nothing is on

record. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Trial is

likely to take long time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be

served by keeping the accused-petitioner behind the bars till

disposal of the case.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application.

4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-

petitioner on bail.

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

allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above

shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in

the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-16122/2022]

the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance

before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and

when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 319-RP/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)