Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Herjot Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10940/2021
Second Bail
Herjot Singh S/o Sh. Rajendera Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
Village-47 G.g. Frist, Ps Padampur, Dist. Shriganganagar.
(Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, Raisinghnagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
02/03/2022
The present second bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial
custody in connection with F.I.R. No.04/2021, Police Station
Gajsinghpur, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offence
under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The first bail application at the behest of petitioner was
dismissed on 21.06.2021 as not pressed with liberty to file fresh
bail application after filing of the charge-sheet. Pressing this
second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is substantial change in the circumstances,
inasmuch as, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. It is
further submitted that the contraband was not recovered from the
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10940/2021]
accused-petitioner and he has wrongly been implicated in this
case only on the statement of co-accused - Dharmendra Singh,
who has been apprehended on the spot. It is further submitted
that except to the statement of co-accused, there is no other
evidence against the accused-petitioner. It is further submitted
that the judgment of Apex Court (Hira Singh and Ors Vs. Union
of India & Ors reported in AIR 2020 SC 3255) in relation to
including the neutral material is required to be considered while
determining small quantity or commercial quantity is being
distinguished by the order of Delhi High Court (Iqbal Singh Vs.
State passed in Bail Application No.645/2020). Thereafter,
relelying on the order of Iqbal Singh (supra), co-ordinate Bench of
this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has granted benefit of bail in
cases of Ashok Tiwari @ Dada Tiwari Vs. State of Rajashtan (S.B.
Cri. Misc. III Bail Application No.20674/2021) and Neeraj Kumar
Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cri. Misc. II Bail Application
No.14653/2021) vide order dated 19.01.2022 and in cases of
Narayan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cri. Misc. Bail Application
No.16911/2021) and Amir Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Crl.
Misc. II Bail Application No.15660/2021) vide order dated
08.02.2022. Therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application
and stated that as per conclusion of the charge-sheet and
documents annexed with the charge-sheet, there is call detail
report and certificate issued under Section 65 B of the Evidence
Act. It is further stated that recovered quantity is commercial
quantity. He lastly urges that rigor of Section 37 is clearly
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10940/2021]
attracted in the present case, therefore, benefit of bail may not be
granted to the accused-petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
as per document annexed with the charge-sheet, there is call
detail report as well as certificate of Section 65B of the Evidence
Act and particularly the fact that judgment of Iqbal Singh (supra)
cannot be relied upon as this case was subsequently distinguished
by the judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Mohd. Ahsan Vs.
Customs (Bail Application No.1136/2021) vide order dated
25.06.2021 and, in para 21 of the judgment, it was held as
under:-
21. Be that as it may, para 8.4 and para 10(II) of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Hira Singh V.
Union of India reported as (2020) SCC OnLine SC
382 does not make any distinction between
manufactured drugs with a miniscule percentage of
narcotic substance and other mixture of narcotic
drugs or phychotropic substance out of a neutral
substance. The judgment of Iqbal Singh (supra) is
therefore contrary to a plain reading of the judgment
of Supreme Court.
Taking into consideration the above observations made in the
case of Mohd. Ahsan (supra) and the fact that the case was not
cited before any of the co-ordinate Benches of this Court earlier
seeking bail, and also the conditions mentioned in Section 37 of
NDPS Act operate against the accused-petitioner, without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I do not
find it to be a fit case to grant benefit of bail to the accused-
petitioner before recording the statement of Investigating Officer.
Accordingly, the second bail application is hereby rejected.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
9-Bharti/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
