Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17089/2021
Dara Singh S/o Shri Darshan Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Panka, Police Station Arniwala, District Fajilka, Punjab. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shreedhar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr S.S. Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Judgment / Order
25/01/2022
In the wake of onslaught of COVID19, as per guidelines,
lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts,
therefore, hearing of the matter is being taken up only through
video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
This this bail application under sec.439 CrPC has been filed
by the accused-petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR
No.199/2019 registered at Police Station Chhatargarh, District
Bikaner for offence under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial
court has rejected bail application of the petitioner on the ground
that the accused-petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in which the
contraband was found whereas there is no evidence to show the
accused-petitioner as owner of the vehicle and even as per
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-17089/2021]
prosecution, owner of the alleged vehicle PB-15-D-5822 is
Gurjinder Singh s/o Shravan Singh, Jat Sikh, resident of near
Masih Church, Jammu Basti, Abohar, District Fajilka (Punjab).
Learned counsel further submitted that the accused
petitioner has been implicated on the statement of co-accused
Sukhdeo Singh along with the statement and information given by
of the accused under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act after his arrest
but there is no other evidence i.e. call details report etc by which
it can be deemed that the accused-petitioner was linked with the
recovered contraband.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that 95 kilogram Poppy Husk has been
recovered, which is commercial quantity. He lastly urges that
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted in the present case.
It is admitted fact that the accused-petitioner was not
apprehended at the spot and he has been arrested on the basis of
statement of co-accused Sukhdeo Singh, who was arrested on the
spot and who named the accused-petitioner as the person who
was present in the vehicle with him.
Having regard to the facts that the place of recovery was
already within the knowledge of the Investigating Officer because
co-accused Sukhdeo Singh was arrested on the spot and, despite
availability of IMEI numbers of the mobile phones of the accused-
petitioner and co-accused Sukhdeo Singh, no call details report or
tower location has been recorded by the Investigating Office; the
charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and the trial will take
time; the condition under Sec.37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied in
the present case; without making any comment on the merits,
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-17089/2021]
this Court deems it appropriate to release the accused-petitioner
on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application of the accused-petitioner
under sec.439 CrPC is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioner Dara Singh s/o Darshan Singh, presently confined in
connection with FIR No.199/2019 registered at Police Station
Chhatargarh, District Bikaner shall be released on bail provided he
furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each (out of which one surety shall be
local), to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance
before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
42-MMA/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
