Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42839)
2023 Latest Caselaw 10523 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10523 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42839) on 8 December, 2023

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:42839]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9650/2023

Prakash S/o Masu Lal Banjara, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Devipura, P.s. Jeeran, District Neemuch (M.p.) (At Present
Lodged At District Jail, Chittorgarh)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

08/12/2023 This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed

by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R.

No.239/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District

Chittorgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and

29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused

Mukesh, Indra Singh and Dharmendra have already been enlarged

on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023. The order dated

04.12.2023 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for

ready reference:

"These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.239/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District

[2023:RJ-JD:42839] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9650/2023]

Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.8.2020. Learned counsel submitted that the contraband (poppy straw) weighing 98.600 kgs was recovered from one Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.MP43-BD-

0693 when it was in transit. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Arjun Banjara was found sitting on the wheel of the offending vehicle, whereas the present petitioners were sitting as co-passengers with him. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no knowledge about illicit poppy straw being transported in the offending vehicle by the co-accused Arjun Banjara. Learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence which can establish that the present petitioners had any knowledge about contraband being transported in the offending vehicle.

It was further urged that the petitioners were neither the owners of the offending vehicle nor any evidence has come on record attributing knowledge to them regarding use of the offending vehicle for transporting the contraband.

Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Babu Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2021 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.4151/2021.

Lastly, placing reliance on the judgment dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023 and Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody for more than three years and the delay in trial is not attributable to them, therefore, the delay in trial can also be considered for releasing the accused persons on bail despite restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusation levelled against the petitioners, the bail applications deserve to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

[2023:RJ-JD:42839] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9650/2023]

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that nothing has come on record indicating that the petitioners who were travelling in the offending vehicle as co-passengers had any knowledge about the contraband being transported therein coupled with the custody period of the petitioners and in view of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain (supra) and Rabi Prakash (supra), this Court prima facie finds that the conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Mukesh S/o Masulal Banjara,

(ii) Indra Singh S/o Kishore and (iii) Dharmendra S/o Babu Lal Banjara shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.239/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, provided each of them 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do 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. A copy of this order be placed in each file."

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that case of

the present petitioners is not distinguishable from that of the case of

the co-accused Mukesh, Indra Singh and Dharmendra, who have

already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is 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-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

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

above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail

by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023.

[2023:RJ-JD:42839] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9650/2023]

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and