Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8656/2021
Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Sohanlal, Aged About 35 Years, Village
Ward No. 7, Nihalpura, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.
(Presently Lodged In Hanumangarh Jail).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Khemendra Mathur, through V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
21/01/2022
The instant second bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 288/2020 registered at Police Station
Pilibanga, Hanumangarh, for offences punishable under Sections
8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this
case recovery has been shown to be made from carrybag in the
hands of the present petitioner. However, the recovery has been
materialize before giving notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein afterwards
referred to as 'the Act of 1985'). Since there is violation of
provisions of Section 50 of the Act of 1985, the alleged recovery
from the possession of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8656/2021]
Relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd.
Ahsan vs. Customs : Bail Application No. 136/2021 decided
on 25.6.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
percentage of contents of the drugs in the recovered tablets can
only be taken into consideration while determining the quantity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are
irregularities in the sampling also. Only ten bags have been sent
for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. In the above
circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow
this bail application.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the bail application.
Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available
on record, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner are not tenable at this stage. Prima facie, in this case
provision of Section 50 of the Act of 1985 is not applicable, since,
the alleged recovery was not made from the person, but from the
bag carrying in the hands of the petitioner. Taking into
consideration the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Hira Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr :
Criminal Appeal No. 722/2017 decided on 22.4.2020, the
neutral substance cannot be excluded while determining the
quantity of recovered tablets. Alleged irregularity in sampling also
requires meticulous examination. Since, alleged recovery of
312.75 grams of Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets are in
commercial quantity and looking to the provisions of Section 37 of
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8656/2021]
the Act of 1985, this Court does not deem it fit to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J
4-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
