Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishnu Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 October, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 704/2022

Sunil Kumar S/o Bhairaram Ji, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Fatehsar Satheran, Police Station Shri Balaji, Dist. Nagour.
(Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Nagour)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
No. 776/2022
1. Vishnu Bheel S/o Dalu Bheel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Chandrapura Ps Chanderiya Dist. Chittorgarh

2. Rajunath S/o Ratannath, Aged about 25 years, R/o Singhpur,
P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh

(At Present Both Appellants Lodged In J.c. Dist. Jail Nagaur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwaru Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

20/10/2022

S.B. Criminal Misc. SOSA (Appeal) No. 704/2022

List after four weeks.

S.B. Criminal Misc SOSA (Appeal) No. 776/2022

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants has shown the

bail order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in

(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 08:52:39 PM)
(2 of 5) [SOSA-704/2022]

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14480/2019 (Rajunath

Vs. State of Rajasthan), decided on 28.01.2020, which reads as

follows:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the
material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR
No.64/2017 of P.S. Shribalaji, District Nagaur for the
offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and
8/29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application
under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that after rejection of second bail application of the
petitioner, statements of Investigating Officer, Baldev
Ram (PW-7) have been recorded before the trial
court. It is argued that as per the prosecution story, a
huge quantity of poppy straw and small quantity of
opium were recovered from the residential house of
co-accused Sunil. The co-accused Sunil was not
apprehended at the spot, however, later on he was
arrested and he, while in police custody, gave
information that he procured the said narcotic
contraband from the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that except the
information supplied by the co-accused Sunil while in
police custody, no other evidence is available on
record to connect the petitioner with the commission
of crime. It is settled that information given by an
accused while in police custody is not admissible in
evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited attention of this Court towards the evidence of
Investigating Officer Baldev Ram (PW-7) and has
argued that from his evidence also, it is clear that
except the information supplied by co-accused Sunil
while in police custody, no other evidence is available

(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 08:52:39 PM)
(3 of 5) [SOSA-704/2022]

on record to connect the petitioner with the
commission of crime.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that taking into consideration the above facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to
be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case and having gone through
the material available on record and the statements
of Investigating Officer, Baldev Ram (PW-7), who has
not specified the nature of evidence available against
the petitioner except the information given by the
coaccused Sunil while in police custody, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this bail application filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that
petitioner Rajunath S/o Shri Ratannath shall be
released on bail in connection with FIR No.64/2017 of
P.S. Shribalaji, District Nagaur 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."
3. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants further submits

that the Investigating Officer has clearly mentioned that the co-

accused (the present applicants-appellants), were not arrested

from the spot, and the main accused was Sunil, who was the

owner of the residential premises.

(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 08:52:39 PM)
(4 of 5) [SOSA-704/2022]

4. Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants also submits

that there was no evidence available on record to connect the

present applicants-appellants with the commission of crime,

except for the information supplied by accused-Sunil, which was

also recorded in the aforementioned bail order dated 28.01.2020.

5. Learned PP opposed the application suspension of sentence

application but is unable to refute the aforesaid submissions.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this

Court is of the opinion that the bail application for suspension of

sentence filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

7. Accordingly, this S.B. Suspension of Sentence Application

(Appeal) filed under Sec.389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered

that the substantive sentence passed by the trial court vide

judgment dated 20.07.2022 in Sessions Case No.94/2018 against

appellants (1) Vishnu Bheel S/o Dalu Bheel (2) Rajunath S/

o Ratannath shall remain suspended till final disposal of the

aforesaid appeal, provided each of them execute a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each

to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance

in this court on 22.11.2022 and whenever ordered to do so, till

the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:-

1. That they will appear before the trial Court in the
month of January of every year till the appeal is
decided.

2. That if the appellants change the place of
residence, they will give in writing their changed
address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel
in the High Court.

(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 08:52:39 PM)
(5 of 5) [SOSA-704/2022]

3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address,
they will give in writing their changed address to
the trial Court.

8. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of

the accused-appellants in a separate file. Such file be registered

as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the

accused-appellants were tried and convicted. A copy of this order

shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc.

file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating

to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the

said accused-appellants do not appear before the trial court, the

learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for

cancellation of bail.