Sri Ram @ Sanjay vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 532 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 532 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sri Ram @ Sanjay vs State on 10 January, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12631/2021

Sri Ram @ Sanjay S/o Shri Varinga Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Nai Bond, Gudamalani Police Station, Distt. Barmer. (Lodged In Sub Jail, Balotra)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

10/01/2022 Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the

unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to

pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in

connection with F.I.R. No.106/2019, Police Station Pachpadra,

District Barmer for the offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S.

Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no

evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the

recovery of contraband.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-12631/2021]

I have considered the statements made at Bar and gone

through the impugned order dated 05.08.2021. It is noted that

there are 20 cases pending against the present petitioner out of

which number of cases are registered under the NDPS Act. The

pendency of the cases against the petitioner ranged since 2012 till

2020-21. It appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender and

if he is enlarged on bail, he will be indulged in all kinds of

notorious and illegal activities disturbing the peace and tranquility

in the society.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar V/s. Ashis Chatterjee: (2010) 14 SCC 496 has held as

under:-

While dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:

Among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i). whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii). Nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii). Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction

(iv). Danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v). Character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi). Likelihood of the offence being repeated;

                                                                         (3 of 3)                      [CRLMB-12631/2021]


                                              (vii).  Reasonable apprehension                        of   the
                                              witnesses being influenced; and

(viii). Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not in a

position to dispute the fact that 20 cases are pending against the

present petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the fact that there is every likelihood and

possibility of the petitioner being involved in commission of the

offence, if he is enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of

the offence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to

the petitioner at this stage.