Rajasthan High Court
Babulal S/O Sonaram vs Union Of India on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2470/2022
Babulal S/o Sonaram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vill. Bishnoiyon
Ki Dhani Dungarpur Tehsil Rohat Distt. Pali (At Present Accused
In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Narcotics Control Bureau
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hora, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl. PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
02/03/2022
The second bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
Complaint No.VIII(IO)05/NCB/JZU/2020 Registered by NCB,
Jodhpur for the offence(s) under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of
N.D.P.S. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars
since 02.08.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed against the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that first
bail application filed by the petitioner was withdrawn with liberty
to file the same after filing of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel
for the petitioner also submits that petitioner was made accused
on the statement of co-accused Manjudas. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that as per judgment of Apex Court in case
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2470/2022]
of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, statement of Manjudas
can not be read against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that similarly situated co-accused Rajesh
Kumar Yadav was enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court. Case of the petitioner is far better than Rajesh Kumar
Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that at the
time of commission of offence, there was no call details filed by
the Investigating Agency to the petitioner with Manjudas.
Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be
enlarged on second bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the following judgments: (1) Shadev Vs. State of Rajasthan
reported in 2020 (1) RLW 881 (Raj.); (2) Labhchand Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2019 SCC Online MP
449; (3) Bhagwatilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported
in 2019 SCC Online MP 2445; (4) Saurabh Agarwal Vs.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2019 SCC Online Raj 4275;
(5) Mukesh Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.987/2008; (6) Kishan Singh Vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in 1995 SCC Online Raj 429; (7)
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bikhiria & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat &
Ors. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 568 and (8) Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that as per investigation, petitioner was constantly
touch with co-accused Manjudas and Manjudas was going to
supply opium to the petitioner for that call details are on record.
Previously, Manjudas also supplied the contraband article to the
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2470/2022]
petitioner. Recovered contraband article is commercial quantity.
So, the second bail application be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public
Prosecutor.
It reveals from the investigation that contraband article was
recovered from co-accused Manjudas and Manjudas was going to
supply the contraband article to the petitioner. Investigating
Agency has collected the call details of the petitioner as well as
co-accused Manjudas. As per statement of co-accused Manjudas,
Manjudas has also supplied the contraband article prior to this
incident to the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I
do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the second bail application stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin/07
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
