Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

                                    (1 of 6)                    [CRLMB-7953/2023]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7953/2023

Suresh S/o Sh. Vagaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Pipliya Nadi,karda, Police Station Karda,dist. Jalor(Raj) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Thorugh PP

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7751/2023 Dinesh Kumar S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Viyo Ka Goliya,bhinmal Police Station, Distt. Jalore.

(Lodged In Sub Jail, Bali)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mayank Roy.

Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Salim Khan, PP.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    Order

16/08/2023

These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been

filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.221/2022 registered at Police Station Nana, District Pali, for

the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

As per prosecution, on 04.12.2022, around 10:24 am, SHO,

Hanumana Ram, SI, Police, Nana with police team after patrolling

(2 of 6) [CRLMB-7953/2023]

around Aamliya, Thandi Beri reached Tani Tiraya, where around

10:50 am, they saw an un-numbered white Creta car coming from

Khila, which on seeing the police team, reversed and accelerated

again towards Khila. The police team started chasing the suspicious

vehicle and near Kali Bor river Puliya, on seeing the herd of cows

blocking the road, the driver and the person sitting on the passenger

seat of the vehicle, stepped down from it and started running

towards the forest near the river, in opposite directions. The police

team then started chasing the suspicious persons and searched the

offending vehicle in which it found contraband (poppy husk/straw).

The driver of the offending vehicle was nabbed by the police, who

disclosed his name to be Suresh (petitioner in S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7953/2023 ). Petitioner- Suresh

disclosed the name of person plying on the passenger seat to be

Dinesh (petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

7751/2023). It was also disclosed by him that petitioner- Dinesh is

the owner of the offending vehicle. On searching the offending

vehicle, contraband (poppy straw/ husk) weighing 91 kg and 564

grams, contained in 5 sacks was recovered, for which petitioner-

Suresh did not have any valid license or permit.

Learned counsel for petitioner- Suresh submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner was neither arrested from the

spot nor was found plying in the offending vehicle. It was submitted

that there is no evidence available on record indicating connection of

the petitioner either with the contraband recovered or with

commission of alleged crime. On strength of submissions advanced,

learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely

(3 of 6) [CRLMB-7953/2023]

implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. It was

submitted that no cogent piece of evidence is available to indicate

that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle which was

allegedly used for transporting contraband (poppy husk) weighing

greater than commercial quantity except his disclosure statement.

Learned counsel for petitioner- Dinesh in addition to the

arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner- Suresh, submitted that

the petitioner has falsely implicated in the present case solely on the

basis of the disclosure statements of petitioner- Suresh. Further

submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of petitioner

-Suresh, there is no other direct/ corroboratory evidence available on

record indicating his involvement in the commission of alleged crime.

It was further submitted that the offending vehicle does not belong

to the petitioner and even the chassis and engine numbers of the

vehicle were worn out and thus, not clear.

It was jointly submitted that the petitioners are in judicial

custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time,

therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-

petitioners.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

applications and submitted that sufficient direct and corroboratory

evidence is available on record indicating involvement of the

petitioners in commission of alleged offence. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that petitioners on seeing police personnel, fled

away from the offending vehicle. However, petitioner- Suresh was

apprehended by the police personnel from nearby area. Learned

counsel submitted that petitioner- Suresh in his disclosure statement

informed that recovered contraband was loaded by petitioner- Dinesh

(4 of 6) [CRLMB-7953/2023]

in the offending vehicle from a field situated in village Mangalwada,

District Chittorgarh. The place from where contraband was loaded

was also identified by him. Learned Public Prosecutor further

submitted that mobile numbers of petitioner- Dinesh were also found

saved in the mobile phone of petitioner- Suresh. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that though the chassis and engine numbers of

the offending vehicle were worn out, but investigating agency on the

basis of a number plates recovered from the offending vehicle, after

making due inquiry, has reached to a definite conclusion that

petitioner- Dinesh is registered owner of the offending vehicle

(Creta). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner- Dinesh

in his disclosure statements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act

has also informed that the contraband (poppy husk) was loaded by

him and petitioner- Suresh from a field situated in village

Mangalwada, District Chittorgarh.

Learned Public Prosecutor thus implored the Court that looking to

seriousness of allegations coupled with the embargo contained in

Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioners may not be granted indulgence

of bail in the present case.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, challan papers and disclosure statements

of petitioners- Suresh and Dinesh coupled with the fact that

petitioner- Dinesh has been found to be registered owner of the

offending vehicle, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that

petitioner- Suresh was apprehended from a nearby area, when he

was trying to flee from the spot by abandoning the offending vehicle,

(5 of 6) [CRLMB-7953/2023]

who in his disclosure statement informed that petitioner- Dinesh was

sitting besides him the offending vehicle and contraband (poppy

husk) greater than commercial quantity was loaded by him and

petitioner- Dinesh. This Court after carefully perusing the challan

papers, also prima facie finds that mobile numbers of the petitioners

were saved in mobile phones.

This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein Hon'ble the Apex

Court had observed as under:-

"......Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail, the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause

(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for."

Similarly, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of

India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100

considered the position of law with regard to Section 37 of NDPS

Act and held that the test which the courts are required to apply

while granting bail is that there are reasonable grounds to believe

that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is

likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the

seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in

(6 of 6) [CRLMB-7953/2023]

order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country,

stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act

have been prescribed.