Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bohar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:43421) on 13 December, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:43421]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 15807/2023
Bohar Singh S/o Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Kale Ki Ithar, P.s. Arif K, Dist. Firozpur, Punjab (Presently
Lodged In Hanumangarh Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
13/12/2023
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance
of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Sangriya
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 8/15, 25 & 29 of the
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any
6. Date of passing of impugned 02.12.2023
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
[2023:RJ-JD:43421] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15807/2023]
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. In view of paragraph No.2 of the judgment dated 20.11.2023
passed by this Court in SB criminal misc. Bail application
No.5232/2023 titled Jagatarsingh vs. State of Rajasthan, this
Court is of the opinion that the case in hand is on the same
footing having no distinguishable features, thus, on the
ground of parity, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. The
relevant paragraph of the afore-mentioned judgment is as
under:
"It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner
that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him
and his incarceration is not warranted. There are several
flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. He submits
that the seizing officer had been informed about the
presence of narcotic substance in the bag of the
petitioner before he left to conduct search and seizure,
yet the seizing officer did not relay the above- mentioned
information to the senior officers before proceeding further
which is mandatory under Section 42 of NDPS Act and
thus, the entire process of recovery stands vitiated on this
count because of non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
[2023:RJ-JD:43421] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15807/2023]
The petitioner is behind the bars since long 3.5 years. There
are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work
against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has
been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises."
6. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to
conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is
deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner
in the present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
71-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
