Sanjeev vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2098 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 245/2022

Sanjeev S/o Mamraj Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Tyoda, Shahbad Police Station, District Kurukshetra (Haryana) (Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

07/02/2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.13/2018 of Police

Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh for the offences

punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. He has

preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per

the prosecution story, the police have stopped the Swift Dezire Car

bearing No. HR-78-C-0499, in which three persons namely

Balvinder, Jitendra and Jatinder were sitting. On checking, the

police have recovered 7 Kgs of opium from the said car. As per the

prosecution story, all the above named three persons have

informed the police that the said narcotic contraband was

purchased by the petitioner, who was alighted from the car around

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-245/2022]

1 KM before. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

on the basis of the said information the police have arrested the

petitioner and filed charge-sheet against him. It is also submitted

that admittedly no recovery was affected from the petitioner and

he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the

statement of the accused-persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention

towards the charge-sheet as well as the statement of the

prosecution witness including the investigation officer, and argued

that from their evidence, it is clear that no other evidence is

available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission

of crime. It is, therefore, submitted that petitioner is entitled to be

enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and submitted that it is the petitioner, who purchased the opium

and was transporting with the other co-accused persons but just 1

KM before intercepting alighted from the vehicle. However, learned

Public Prosecutor has failed to indicate any definite evidence

collect by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the

commission of crime.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused

petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sanjeev S/o

Mamraj Jat shall be released on bail in connection with FIR

No.13/2018 of Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-245/2022]

provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that

court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon

to do so till the completion of the trial.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 95-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)