Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12805/2021.
Hari Ram S/o Sukhram Ji, aged about 40 years, resident of
Rohila Western Sedva, Police Station Sedva, District Barmer.
(Lodged In District Jail, Sirohi).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Vishnoi through VC.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
18/01/2022
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, 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 appearing through
video conferencing and the learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-
person. Perused the material available on record.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-12805/2021]
connection with F.I.R. No. 168/2011, Police Station Swaroopganj,
District Sirohi, registered for the offence punishable under Section
8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS)
Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the secret
information was received on 07.10.2011 which is available at page
number 112 of the charge-sheet; that seizure memo was prepared
which is available at page number 94 to page number 97; that as
per statement of the Seizure Officer Mr. Devidan, two young
persons ran away from the spot, no specific identification was
explained for those two persons earlier; that the charge-sheet was
filed against the co-accused Prakash Chandra and Bhagirath by
the prosecution and after trial, they were acquitted by the Trial
Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2014; that the present accused-
petitioner was implicated in this case on the basis of the
information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; that there
is no other evidence against the present accused-petitioner to link
him with this case; that after arrest, supplementary charge-sheet
was filed in regard to the present accused-petitioner; that the
accused-petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2021; and that trial
will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused- petitioner. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner
further stated that as decided by this Court and by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court, that if there is no other evidence against the
accused except to the statement of the co-accused, the accused is
entitled for granting the benefit of bail.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-12805/2021]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and
fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner
and stated that total 301 kgs. 640 grams of poppy-straw have
been recovered in the present case which is much more than the
minimum required commercial quantity but does not controvert
this argument that except the statement of co-accused, there is
no other evidence against the accused-petitioner and the fact that
after trial, the main accused persons, namely Prakash Chandra as
well as Bhagirath were acquitted by the Trial Court. Learned Public
Prosecutor also stated that the restrictions contained under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly attracted in the present case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly looking to the facts that except the statement of the
co-accused Bhagirath, there is no other/separate evidence against
the accused-petitioner, like call detail report etc. etc.; that the
accused-petitioner was arrested on the basis of the information
given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by the co-accused
Bhagirath; that the charge-sheet in regard to the accused-
petitioner has been filed; that the co-accused persons were
acquitted by the Trial Court; that the accused-petitioner is behind
the bars since 27.07.2021; and that trial will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the
bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
This Court is of the view that the conditions as mentioned under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act have been satisfied in the present
matter.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-12805/2021]
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the petitioner, Hari Ram S/o Sukhram Ji, arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No. 168/2011, Police Station Swaroopganj,
District Sirohi, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with
two sound and solvent surety bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to
appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when
called upon to do so.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
7-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
