Sri Ram @ Sanjay vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5273 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5273 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sri Ram @ Sanjay vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 May, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023/RJJD/016578]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2584/2023

Bhajjan Lal S/o Kalu Ram Bishnoi (Dhaka), Aged About 35 Years, H.no. 61, Dhako Ka Ber, Jaalberi, Dhorimanna Police Station, Dist. Barmer.

(Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2585/2023 Sri Ram @ Sanjay S/o Varinga Ram Bishnoi (Dhaka), Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nai Bond, Gudamalani Police Station, Dist. Barmer.

(Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order 25/05/2023

The present bail applications have been filed by the

petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. who have been arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.265/2020, registered at Police Station

Badi Sadari, District Chittorgarh, for the offences punishable under

Sections 307 & 353 of the IPC, Sections 8/15 & 8/25 of the NDPS

Act, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

As per prosecution, on 09.11.2020, petitioner- Sri Ram @

[2023/RJJD/016578] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2584/2023]

Sanjay filled contraband (poppy husk/straw) above commercial

quantity (4 quintal and 40kgs.) in an unnumbered Scorpio vehicle

and handed it over to petitioner- Bhajan Lal and co-accused

Mukesh. Petitioner- Bhajan Lal along with co-accused Mukesh

while transporting the above mentioned contraband in the Scorpio,

were was flagged down by the police near Ramanuj School, Khair

Mallya Road, Khardewla. On seeing the police personnel,

petitioner- Bhajan Lal and co-accused Mukesh fired gunshots at

them and fled away from the place of incident.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been

falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioners were not at all present at the site. Learned

counsel further submitted that petitioner- Bhajan Lal has been

involved in the present case only on the ground that he is

registered owner of the offending vehicle. However, there is no

material available on record which could connect petitioner-

Bhajan Lal with the alleged crime or indicate that he had any

knowledge about contraband being transported in the offending

vehicle.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have

been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of their

disclosure statements under Indian Evidence Act, without there

being any direct/corroboratory evidence. He thus, implored the

Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public

[2023/RJJD/016578] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2584/2023]

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The case file shows that against both the petitioners, large

number of cases including cases under NDPS Act, are pending trial

before competent criminal courts.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC

673, has observed as under:-

"......Negation of bail is the rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court and co-ordinate Benches of this

Court in a number of judgments has held that a bail Court while

dealing with the matters under NDPS Act, involving commercial

quantity has to record its satisfaction in light of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act. The mandate contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act has

been discussed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court in

the following cases:-

[2023/RJJD/016578] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2584/2023]

i. State of Kerela & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 721, ii. Union of India Vs. Ratan Malik reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624, iii. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kishan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 558, iv. Union of India Vs. Shiv Shaurav Kesari reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798, and v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau Vs. Sambhu Sonkar & Ors., Control reported in AIR 2001 SC 830.

Having considered rival submissions, facts and circumstances

of the case and seriousness of the accusations against the

petitioners, prima facie, this Court finds that petitioners are

accused in large number of cases including NDPS cases. This Court

is therefore, unable to record its satisfaction/mandatory findings in

terms of Section 37 (b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, that the petitioners

are not likely to commit any offence of NDPS Act while on bail.