Chandra Prakash @ Channa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6599 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10328/2023

Chandra Prakash @ Channra Ram S/o Khardha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Anakhiya Tehsil Gudamalani Dist. Barmer (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Barmer)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxman Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharvan Bishnoi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

29/08/2023

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with

FIR No.35/2021 registered at Police Station RGT (Rawalinadi),

District Barmer, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the

NDPS Act.

Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, on

19.4.2021, SHO Police Station RGT (Rawalinadi), District Barmer

on receiving secret information, reached the house of Chhagan

Lal, where it was found that two persons were unloading the sacks

from a vehicle (Bolero) to an under construction house. Both the

persons on seeing the police personnel fled away from the place of

incident. The police constable Pema Ram identified these persons

as Chhagan Lal S/o Dalla Ram and Chandra Prakash S/o Kharta

Ram.

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-10328/2023]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that presence of the petitioner at the place of

occurrence has been established by one Pema Ram Constable.

Learned counsel submitted that statements of Pema Ram

Constable have been recorded before competent criminal court on

17.2.2023 as P.W.1. Drawing attention of the Court towards cross-

examination of Pema Ram, learned counsel submitted that

presence of present petitioner - Chandra Prakash was established

by the neighbours at the place of incident merely on the basis of

suspicion. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of Pema

Ram is reproduced below for ready reference:

";g dguk lgh gS fd eSus vkl iMksl esa iwNk rc iMksl okyksa us crk;k ml vk/kkj ij ek= lansg ds vk/kkj ij Hkkxus okys 'k[l pUnzizdk'k o Nxuyky gksuk crk;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd 04 dV~Vs ftl fuekZ.kk/khu edku esa cjken gq;s gSa og edku jgokl ugha Fkk fuekZ.kk/khu FkkA "

Learned counsel submitted that from the statements of Pema

Ram, it is prima facie established that the petitioner has been

implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion and

his presence at the place of incident has not been established by

cogent and reliable evidence.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

independent witnesses namely Dalla Ram and Vala Ram in their

testimonies recorded before competent criminal court, have not

supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused chhagan

Lal has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-10328/2023]

this Court vide order dated 10.8.2023 and in view of aforesaid,

there is no cogent and reliable direct/corroboratory evidence

available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in the

commission of alleged crime.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial

custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take

sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be

granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact

that Pema Ram Constable in his court statement has stated that

the presence of the present petitioner at the place of incident has

been shown only on the basis of suspicion.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, so also the fact that the petitioner is in

custody since 19.5.2022 and the presence of the present

petitioner at the place of incident has not been establsihed by any

cogent and reliable evidence; without expressing any opinion on

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the view that

conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly

satisfied and thus, the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail in the

present case.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Chandra

Prakash @ Channra Ram S/o Khardha Ram shall be enlarged

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-10328/2023]

on bail in connection with FIR No.35/2021 registered at Police

Station RGT (Rawalinadi), District Barmer, provided he furnishes 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

his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of

hearing as and when called upon to so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail

application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 283-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)