Rajasthan High Court
Lalit Singh Mehta S/O Shri Nandlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 May, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
6457/2021
Lalit Singh Mehta S/o Shri Nandlal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Pratap Chowk Chhoti Saddi Police Station Chhoti Saddi District
Pratapgarh (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Nasirabad
Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order
10/05/2022
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 283/2018 registered at Police Station Nasirabad
Sadar, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 8/15 & 8/25 of
I.P.C.
3. Petitioner has preferred this second bail application after
recording of the statement of seizure officer (PW.1). It is
contended by counsel for the petitioner that a Bolero was seized
by the police and ten drums were recovered from the Bolero. It is
also contended that the weight of the empty drums was around 18
Kgs & 400 gms and it is said to be loaded with 308 Kgs & 300 gms
of poppy husk. It is further contended that it is impossible that in
a vehicle in which three persons were found sitting, ten drums
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6457/2021]
could have been accommodated. It is also contended that there
are various discrepancies in the prosecution case. Search and
seizure was conducted between between sun set and sun rise and
compliance of the provisions of the NDPS Act were done by the
seizure officer.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "State of
Orissa vs. Laxman Jena (2009) 16 Supreme Court Cases
332" where on non-compliance of proviso to Section 42(1) of the
NDPS Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the accused. Reliance
has also been placed on "Mahmood Kurdeya vs. Narcotics
Control Bureau (Criminal Appeal No.1570/2021) decided by
Hon'ble Apex Court" where bail was granted to the accused as
the trial had protracted for more than three years.
5. It is further contended that the present petitioner is in
custody from 31.08.2018 and statement of only one witness has
been recorded so far.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail
application. He has placed reliance on "State of Kerala & Ors.
vs. Rajesh & Ors. (2020) 12 Supreme Court Cases 122
decided on 24.01.2020" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
specifically held that provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has
to be strictly complied with before granting bail to an accused.
7. I have considered the contentions and perused the
judgments cited above.
8. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that ten drums
could not have been recovered from Bolero is without any basis,
for the very reason that the vehicle which was recovered was a
Bolero pick up and in a Bolero pick up there is an open space
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6457/2021]
where the drums could have been stored. The other contention of
counsel for the petitioner pertains to non compliance of the
mandatory provision of the NDPS Act. This Court is not inclined to
entertain the present bail application on the ground of non-
compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act because that would be dealt with by the Court at the time
when the matter would be finally decided. The recovered quantity
is a commercial quantity, this Court at this stage cannot assume
that the accused has not committed any offence. This Court
further at this stage cannot come to the conclusion that the
petitioner would not repeat the offence while on bail.
9. Considering the above facts, I am thus not inclined to
entertain the present second bail application.
10. This second bail application is accordingly, rejected.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Amit/1
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
