Balveer @ Radhey vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3663 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012263]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 492/2023

Balveer @ Radhey S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Chotala, Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1099/2023 Rajendra Kumar @ Raju @ Rajkumar S/o Rameshwarlal @ Mishraram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Kishanpura Dikhnada Ps Hanumangarh Town Dist. Hanumangarh Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Sangriya)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma Mr. Jitendra Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP Mr. Lal Bahadur Chandra, SI, SHO, PS-Talwara, District Hanumangarh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

26/04/2023

The present bail applications have been filed under Section

439, CrPC on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in

connection with FIR No. 359/2022 of Police Station Sangariya,

[2023/RJJD/012263] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-492/2023]

District Hanumangarh for the offences under Section 8/15, 25, 29

of the NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application of petitioner Balveer @ Radhey was

dismissed as not pressed with the liberty to file same afresh after

filing of the charge-sheet on 01.08.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is

further submitted that no recovery has been made from the

petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel further submits

that the petitioners have been entangled in the present case

merely on the basis of call detail records. It was argued that mere

call detail records cannot cast suspicion on the accused unless the

same are accompanied by conversations in such calls. In support

of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of

this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan: (2015) 2

CRILR(Raj) 553. It is also submitted that c harge-sheet has been filed

in the present matter.Thus, it is prayed that the petitioners may

be granted the benefit of bail. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following

judgments:

(II) Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: (2018) 8 SCC 271

(II) Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.

152/2013, decided on 29 October, 2020.

4. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 60 kg of poppy husk has

been recovered in the present case which is in commercial

[2023/RJJD/012263] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-492/2023]

quantity and therefore grant of bail in the present case is hit by

the provisions of Section 37, NDPS Act. It is further submitted

that as per the allegations made at page No.15 of the paper book

(charge-sheet), accused Surendra was carrying total 1 quintal and

40 kgs of poppy husk out of which he sold 80 kgs to the petitioner

Balveer @ Radhey. It is also submitted that in so far as petitioner

Rajendra Kumar is concerned, he has specifically stated in his

statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that he

used to go with his brother Ramkumar to purchase poppy husk

from another supplier and there are call detail records to connect

the present petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also brought the

attention of this Court towards the call detail record of the

petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were in constant

touch with the main accused-Surendra. Lastly, learned Public

Prosecutor prayed that the bail applications may be rejected.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record. I have carefully gone through the

judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. The

judgments are of no help to the petitioners at the stage of

deciding the bail applications because at the time of deciding the

bail application the merit of the case is not considered.

6. In the present case, the recovered contraband is in

commercial quantity and therefore, the grant of bail is hit by the

provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act, therefore, without commenting

on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit

case for grant of bail.

[2023/RJJD/012263] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-492/2023]

7. Consequently, the present bail applications are hereby

rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the

trial of the case.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 3-4-Bharti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)