Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Abhishek Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/004129]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10028/2022
Ashok Kumar S/o Munnalal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o RCP
Colony, Ward No. 1, Sri Vijaynagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
(Presently are Lodged At Sub Jail, Anupgarh Dist. Sri
Ganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8678/2021
Abhishek Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Narayan, Aged About 24 Years, B/c
Brahmin, R/o Ward No.1, Sri Vijaynagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.
(Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, At Anoopgarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Chandra Bishnoi
Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gouri, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
06/02/2023
The present second bail applications have been filed under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in
custody in connection with F.I.R. No.750/2019, Police Station
Anupgarh, Sangria, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under
Sections 8/22, 25, 29 of NDPS Act.
[2023/RJJD/004129] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10028/2022]
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that after the
rejection of the first bail application of the petitioners on
11.09.2020, the statement of Seizure Officer has been recorded
as PW-1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that
as per the statement of the Seizure Officer, the procedure for
search and seizure as per the NDPS Act has not been followed.
To buttress their contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in the cases of Sanjeev & Anr. Vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 267
and State of Punjab Petitioner Vs. Balbir Singh Respondent
reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1872.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that 3
boxes were recovered from the car, however, the samples from all
the three boxes have not been sent for FSL. Learned counsel also
submit that in the statement, it has come on record that their cars
were stopped by the seizure/raiding party. However, it has come
on record that the contraband has been recovered/intercepted
while it was fleeing from the place of recovery/interception. They,
therefore, pray that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case including the
[2023/RJJD/004129] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10028/2022]
statement of PW-1-Motaram, who is the Seizure Officer in the
present case.
Admittedly, huge quantity of contraband drugs have been
recovered from the vehicle of the petitioners in which both the
petitioners were present. As far as the recovery of the contraband
drugs from the vehicle and from the possession of the petitioners
is concerned, there are no contradictory statement of any witness,
who has appeared before the trial court so far. The factum of
recovery from the possession and from the car in which the
petitioners were present is conclusively made out from the record
placed before this Court and the statements made before the trial
court.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and considering the fact that huge quantity of
contraband drugs have been recovered in the present case and
looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not
inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners
at this stage.
Accordingly, the present second bail applications preferred by
the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
56-57-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
