Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jital Kansara vs Union Of India Through Dri on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1581/2022
Jital Kansara S/o Prakashchandra Kansara, Aged About 44 Years,
B/c Kansara, R/o 4- Aarohi Royal Bunglows, S.P. Ring Road,
Bhopal (South), Ahmedabad (Guj.). (Presently Lodged At Dist.
Jail, Sirohi).
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through DRI.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Bhati, P.P.
Mr. Prakash Raika on behalf Mr.
Mukesh Rajpurohit, DSG for
respondent UOI through DRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
Date of pronouncement : 24/01/2023
Judgment reserved on : 18/01/2023
BY THE COURT :
1. The accused-petitioner Jital Kansara has preferred the
instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. who has been
arrested in connection with Special Case No.01/2016 "State Vs.
Om Prakash & Ors." in Complaint Case No.1/2015 for the offences
punishable under Sections 8 (c), 22, 25, 27A, 28, 29 and 38 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS
Act" for short).
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and he has no
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-1581/2022]
connection with the alleged recovery of illicit contraband. He
further submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case
on the basis of confessional statements made and nothing has
been recovered from his possession. Learned counsel argued that
the confessional statement made by the accused under Section 67
of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence. In this regard, he
placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
10.1.2022 rendered in State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs.
Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Ors. (Petition for Special Leave
to Appeal (CRL.) No. 242/2022), wherein, the Apex Court while
relying upon the judgment in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
holding that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67
of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in evidence, rejected
Special Leave Petitions filed by NCB for cancellation of bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that co-accused
Pranav Kansara, Om Prakash, Sunil J. Patel, Ratilal D. Patel,
Jitendra Bhai Panchal have already been enlarged on bail by
Coordinate Benches of this Court. Co-accused Manohar Lal Ainani
has also been extended the benefit of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 15.11.2021 taking into consideration six
and a half year period spent by him in the custody. Learned
counsel argued that the case of the present petitioner is not
distinguishable from these co-accused persons who have already
been enlarged on bail. By now, the accused-petitioner has spent
four years and six months period in judicial custody. It is
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases granted
bail to the accused therein looking to the period of custody spent
by them i.e. more than four years, three years nine months, two
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-1581/2022]
years four months etc. In this regard, he has drawn attention of
this Court towards the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of Rahul Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special
Leave to appeal (Cr.) No.3258/2022 dated 1.11.2022, Tapan Das
Vs. Union of India (Petition for Special Leave to appeal (Cr.)
No.5617/2021 dated 7.10.2021, Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The
State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to appeal (Cr.)
No.5397/2019 and Nadeem Vs. State of UP (Petition for Special
Leave to appeal (Cr.) No.1524/2022. It is further submitted that
relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Co-
ordinate Benches of this Court have also extended the liberty of
bail in number of cases to the accused therein looking to the
period of incarceration suffered by them and in this regard,
learned counsel has made reference to the decisions of this Court
in Suresh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Through PP
(S.B.Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.16118/2022) dated
4.1.2023, Reshmi Singh vs. State of Rajasthan through PP
(S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.15204/2020 dated
23.2.2021, Manish Vs. State through PP (S.B. Criminal Misc. II
Bail Application No.3605/2022) dated 19.5.2022, Sunil Vs. State
Through PP (S.B. Criminal Misc. 4th Bail Application
No.4024/2022) dated 27.4.2022. It is lastly submitted that trial of
the case will take considerably long time to conclude, therefore,
there is no point in keeping the petitioner behind the bars for
indefinite period. On the basis of the above submission, learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner may also be granted the
liberty of bail.
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-1581/2022]
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Union of India through DRI vehemently and strongly opposed the
bail application. It is submitted that it is a matter where huge
quantity of alleged illicit contraband was recovered from the
factory premises of the petitioner. Though the alleged contraband
was not recovered from the physical possession of the petitioner,
but there is ample evidence denoting conscious and active
involvement of the petitioner with the other co-accused persons in
manufacturing of the alleged prohibited contraband at his factory
premises and he was having complete knowledge about the
manufacture of the same at his factory premises. Thus, on the
basis of aforesaid submissions and since according to learned
counsel the case of the petitioner stands on different footing than
the cases of other accused persons, learned counsel submits that
the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected.
4. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material available on
record as also the case law cited.
5. In the present case, a huge quantity of illicit contraband
Mephedrone Hydrochloride weighing 218.43 kg. was found and
recovered from the factory premises of the petitioner who is said
to be the owner of said factory. It is to be noticed that the co-
accused Manohar Lal Ainani was granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex
Court vide order dated 15.11.2021 while taking into consideration
the fact that he has spent approximately six and half year in
custody. Relying upon the said order dated 15.11.2021 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court, co-accused Sunil J. Patel who also
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-1581/2022]
suffered incarceration of six and half year, was granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 24.11.2021 passed in S.B.Criminal Misc.
2nd Bail Application No.11558/2021. Similarly, co-accused Om
Prakash and Pranav Kansara who spent six and a half year in
custody, were granted bail by this Court on 12.1.2022 and co-
accused Ratilal D. Patel was granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 20.1.2022 only on the ground of maintaining parity with the
case of co-accused Manohar Lal Ainani. Thus, co-accused Manohar
Lal Ainani, Sunil J. Patel, Om Prakash and Pranav Kansara were
granted bail while taking note of fact that they have spent six and
half year in custody. As stated in the reply filed by respondent, the
accused-petitioner remained absconded from the date of search
and seizure of the alleged contraband and could be apprehended
by the immigration authorities on 13.7.2018. The accused-
petitioner is in custody since 14.7.2018 and has spent four and
half year custody and thus, no parity can be claimed by the
petitioner vis a vis the cases of aforesaid co-accused persons.
6. In view of the above, having regard to the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature
and gravity of the allegations levelled, without commenting on the
merits and demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant
indulgence of bail to the accused-petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner is
dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
3-RP/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
