Daudayal S/O Shri Girrajmal ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 105 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                               19115/2021


Daudayal S/o Shri Girrajmal Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o

Chhipon Ka Mohalla Purani Tonk Ps Purani Tonk Dist. Tonk Raj.

(At Present In Dist. Jail Tonk)

                                                                   ----Petitioner

                                    Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

05/01/2022

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section

439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.209/2019 was registered at Police Station Purani

Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) for offence under Sections 8 & 20 of

NDPS Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

statement of the Recovery Officer has been recorded. Neither the

contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the

petitioner nor the house from which recovery was effected was

belonging to the petitioner. It is also contended that on the date

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-19115/2021]

when the recovery was effected, one person died in police custody

and police has falsely implicated the present petitioner. The

Recovery Officer has admitted that petitioner was not found in the

house. He has also admitted that none of the persons informed

the Recovery Officer that petitioner ever entered the house from

where the recovery was effected.

4. It is contended that there are no call details to connect the

petitioner with the crime. It is also contended that the alleged

search was conducted in night. No reason was recorded for

conducting the seizure at night. The Provision of the NDPS Act

were flouted.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Taking note of the fact that from the statement of Recovery

Officer, it is evident that recovery was not effected from the

petitioner and the house from where the recovery was effected

does not belong to the present petitioner and petitioner has

remained in custody for a period of more than twenty six months,

the search was conducted at night, no reasons were recorded for

conducting the search at night, hence, I deem it proper to allow

the second bail application.

8. This Second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is

directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided

he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-19115/2021]

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction

of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear

before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred,

on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to

do so.

9. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner repeats the

offence, State would be free to move application for cancellation

of bail before the concerned Court.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ARTI SHARMA /19

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)