Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjay R Patel vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 5067/2022
Sanjay R Patel S/o Ratilal Patel, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Patel,
R/o B-104, Krishn Darshan Apartment, Samiyala Taluka, Baroda
(Guj.). (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Bohra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment
25/05/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR
No.DRI/UZU/JRU/19/INI-4/16 lodged at the Directorate of
Revenue Enforcement (Sessions Case No.192/2017) for the
offences punishable under Section 22, 23, 25, 25(A), 27(A), 29 of
the NDPS Act and Section 2, 8(C), 8(A), 9(A) and Rule 53, 64,
65(A), 66 and 67 of the NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail
application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after
rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner on
23.09.2019, co-accused namely Anil, Gunjan Dudhani and
Parmeshwar have already been enlarged on bail. It is further
argued that except the statement of the petitioner recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, no other evidence is available on
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5067/2022]
record to connect him with the recovery of the narcotic
contraband in this case. It is also submitted that case of the
petitioner stands on a better footing than that of other co-accused
persons who have been enlarged on bail.
It is argued that petitioner is the owner of M/s Redimix
Adhesion Technology and his factory is situated at Nadiad in
Gujarat and in the aforesaid factory, the petitioner is
manufacturing adhesive material and sell the same in the name of
same brands.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per
the prosecution story, the petitioner used to send narcotic
contraband along with the adhesive material to the foreign
countries. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to collect
any evidence to conclude that the petitioner has ever exported
narcotic contraband along with the products manufacturing in his
factory and except the statement of the petitioner recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, no other material is available on to
connect him with the commission of crime. Learned counsel for
the petitioner also argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Tofan Singh V.s. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
(2021) 4 SCC 1 has clearly held that statement of the accused
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be the sole
basis for his conviction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
the petitioner is in custody since 19.02.2017 and, as such, he is in
jail from last more than 5 years. It is also submitted that though
the prosecution has produced list of 96 prosecution witnesses and
out of them, only 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined
by the trial court till date. It is submitted that from the above fact,
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-5067/2022]
it is clear that trial against the petitioner is likely to take time,
therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent - Union of
India has opposed the bail application and submitted that the
petitioner being the owner of M/s Redimix Adhesion Technology
was indulged in exporting narcotic contraband to the foreign
countries, in the garb of adhesive material, which was provided to
him by the main accused namely Shubhash Dudhani, who is now
dead. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that
the prosecution has waived the evidence of 46 witnesses and
proposed to produce only 50 prosecution witnesses, out of which,
25 witnesses have already been examined. Learned counsel for
the respondent has, therefore, submitted that in the above facts
and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
Though, the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner was
exporting the narcotic contraband supplied to him by the main
accused namely Shubhash Dudhani, now dead, in the grab of
adhesive material, however, except his statement recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent has failed to point out any other clinching evidence, on
the basis of which, it can be concluded that the petitioner was
involved in commission of crime.
The co-accused persons namely, Anil, Gunjan Dudhani and
Parmeshwar have already been enlarged on bail and admittedly,
the petitioner is in custody since last more than 5 years and only
half of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-5067/2022]
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances
of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this third bail application filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Sanjay R Patel
S/o Ratilal Patel shall be released on bail in connection with FIR
No.DRI/UZU/JRU/19/INI-4/16 lodged at Directorate of Revenue
Enforcement (Session Case No.192/2017) provided he executes a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
court for his appearance before that court on each and every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of
the trial.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
294-AjaySingh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
