Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arvind vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 Bail Application No. 12110/2022
nd
Arvind S/o Punaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vishnoiyon Ka
Goliya Thana Ramseen District Jalore
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi GA cum AAG with
Mr. Pallav Sharma, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
19/09/2022
The instant second bail application has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in
connection with the FIR No. 54/2021 registered at Police Station
Bekriya, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections
8/15 of NDPS Act.
The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on
4.2.2022 with liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording
the statement of Seizure Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial
court has examined the Seizure Officer as P.W.3. Counsel submits
that Seizure Officer admitted in his statement that he recovered total
94 Kg 950 gm poppy husk containing in bags from the possession of
the petitioner and after taking samples of poppy husk from each of
the bags, he mixed the same and took a sample of 1 Kg and sent the
same for FSL. Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments
rendered in the cases of Netram vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2014(2) WLN 394 (Raj.) and Nagu Singh vs. State of
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-12110/2022]
Rajasthan reported in 2016(3) WLN 310 (Raj.) and upon orders
of this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1603/2018,
Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 27.2.2018 and S.B.
Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 4299/2018, Bheru Lal vs. State
of Rajasthan decided on 30.7.2018, in the said cases also the
samples were taken from all the bags and only two samples were
sent for FSL and this Court granted bail to the accused. Counsel
submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of
the reported cases. The petitioner is in behind the bars and the trial
of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore,
the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail
application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, 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, the second bail application filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner
Arvind S/o Punaram shall be released on bail in connection with
FIR No. 54/2021 registered at Police Station Bekriya, District
Udaipur, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/-
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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
158-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
