Punaram S/O Shri Babu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7863 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7863 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 16 December, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Punaram S/O Shri Babu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4606/2022
Punaram S/o Shri Babu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Dolasar, Police Station Jambha, District Jodhpur Rural (Raj.) ( At
Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP Mr. Prabhati Lal, S.I., S.H.O.

P.S. Nasirabad, Sadar (Ajmer) } I.O. present in person Mr. Ghewar Chand, S.I., S.H.O.

P.S. Kanera, District Chittorgarh } I.O. Present in person

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 16/12/2022

Heard counsel for the parties.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that

the petitioner is behind the bars since 29.09.2016 and only three

witnesses have been examined out of 22 witnesses.

Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matters of Mukesh Vs. The State of

Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.824 of 2021), decided on

16.08.2021, Tapan Das Vs. Union of India (Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) No.5617 of 2021 decided on 07.10.2021, and Amit

Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Special Leave to

Appeal (Crl.) NO.3813/2020, decided on 12.10.2020.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4606/2022]

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and submitted that the contraband article of 122 kg (Doda Posht)

has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-

accused which is of commercial quantity.

Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala

Etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc., Criminal Appeal Nos.154-157 of 2020,

decided on 24.01.2020, where in paras-20, 21 & 22 it has been

held as under:-

"20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.

21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4606/2022]

addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused under the NDPS Act"

In the facts and circumstances of the present case and

looking to the seriousness of the offence(s) alleged against the

petitioner and considering the fact that contraband article which is

of commercial quantity has been recovered from the possession of

petitioner and co-accused and in view of the bar u/s 37 of the

N.D.P.S. Act and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala (supra) and

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, no case

is made out to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 439

Cr.P.C.