Shaitan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9001 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37447]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13795/2023

Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Bhomiyo Ka Bada, Kareda P.s., Dist. Jalore
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Rajsamand)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Divakar Sharma.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Arun Kumar, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

02/11/2023 This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has

been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection

with FIR No.321/2022 registered at Police Station Devgarh,

District Rajsamand, for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS

Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first

bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by

this Court vide order dated 15.9.2023 as not pressed with liberty

to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after the statements

of the Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer are recorded before

the competent criminal court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

statements of the Seizure Officer have been recorded before

competent criminal court on 13.10.2023 as PW-1. Drawing

[2023:RJ-JD:37447] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13795/2023]

attention of the Court towards the cross-examination of Seizure

Officer, learned counsel submitted that the Seizure Officer has

admitted that the recovered contraband was mixed before drawing

a sample for sending it to FSL for examination. Learned counsel

submitted that since the Seizure Officer has admitted mixing of

the contraband recovered by him from different plastic bags, the

entire action of the Seizure Officer is contrary to the Standing

Order No.1/1988 dated 15.3.1988 of the NCB, New Delhi and the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Netram Vs. State

of Rajasthan reported in (2014)1 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial

custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time,

therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-

petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application. However, learned Public Prosecutor was not in a

position to refute the fact that the Seizure Officer during cross-

examination has admitted that the contraband recovered from

different plastic bags was mixed before drawing a sample for

sending it to FSL for examination.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case so also the statement of the Seizure

Officer recorded before competent criminal court, this Court prima

facie finds that the action of the Seizure Officer was not in

conformity with Standing Order No.1/1988 dated 15.3.1988 of the

[2023:RJ-JD:37447] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13795/2023]

NCB, New Delhi and the judgment rendered by this Court in the

case of Netram (supra). The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS

are, therefore, duly satisfied. Thus, without expressing any

opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to

enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-

Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh shall be enlarged on bail

in connection with FIR No.321/2022 registered at Police Station

Devgarh, District Rajsamand, provided he 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 his

appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing

as and when called upon to 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.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)