Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:25244]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 4941/2023
Satpal Singh S/o Jagraj Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward
No. 7, Purani Khunja, Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District
Hanumangarh (Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati Public Prosecutor
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/08/2023
1. The present third bail application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is
in custody in connection with the FIR No. 457/2019 registered at
Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for
the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the co-accused Rajkumar @ Rajan, who was intercepted alongwith
the applicant with 288.2 grams of Capsule has been enlarged on
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
18.07.2023 passed in the case of Rajkumar @ Rajan vs. State of
Rajasthan : S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 7478/2023.
3. Leaned counsel contended that the case of the applicant is
identical to that of the co-accused so far as long custody is
concerned. He, however, submitted that only minor difference
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:02:30 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:25244] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4941/2023]
between the case of the applicant and the case of said co-accused
Rajkumar @ Rajan is, that Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)
report shows the weight of the recovered contraband to be 233
grams, whereas at the time of seizure, it was alleged to be 288.2
grams, whereas the quantity recovered from the petitioner was
commercial.
4. He argued that though the quantity possessed by the
applicant was more than the commercial quantity but the
applicant cannot be denied right of liberty, particularly when it
comes to prolonged custody. He invited Court's attention towards
the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.07.2023 passed in
the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of Odisha : Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4169/2023 and submitted that the
long custody even in the cases of recovery of contraband
substance (NDPS) is a valid ground for releasing an applicant on
bail. Inviting Court's attention towards the proceedings of the trial
court, learned counsel submitted that the trial of the case is likely
to take substantial time and hence, the applicant be enlarged on
bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that
the case of the applicant cannot be equated with that of co-
accused Rajkumar @ Rajan, inasmuch as, the quantity found in
possession of the co-accused Rajkumar @ Rajan was 233 grams
(below commercial), whereas it is commercial in applicant's case.
He was, however, not in a position to dispute the fact that the
petitioner is behind the bars for last four years.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considering that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail, and
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:02:30 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:25244] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4941/2023]
that the present applicant is behind the bars for the last four years
and also because only three witnesses out of eighteen prosecution
witnesses have so far been examined and in the light of judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) and
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
2023 SCC Online SC 352, this Court is inclined to accept the bail
application filed by the applicant.
7. Consequently, the present third bail application filed under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is
ordered that the applicant - Satpal Singh S/o Jagraj arrested in
connection with FIR No. 457/2019 registered at Police Station
Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh shall be released on
bail; provided that he executes a personal bond in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- and two sureties of ₹50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear
before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
8. Needless to mention that the above observations made by
this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the
Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall
however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take
independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral
evidence, while finally deciding the case.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
349-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
