Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pintu vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 November, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023:RJ-JD:37936]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6340/2023
Pintu S/o Harji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Saru Fala, Haila Kui,
P.s. Tidi, Dist. Udaipur.
(Presently Confined In Central Jail Udaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia with
Mr. M. S. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
06/11/2023
The present 2nd bail application has been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in
connection with FIR No.21/2019, Police Station Parsad, District
Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of
the NDPS Act.
The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on
03.02.2020 by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after dismissal
of the first bail application of the petitioner, the statement of
Seizure Officer Subhashchandra Parmar (PW-5) has been recorded
before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner
[2023:RJ-JD:37936] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6340/2023]
submits that 21 packets of contraband were recovered in the
present case and the entire material of 21 packets was mixed and,
thereafter, two samples were taken up for sending to FSL. The
fact of mixing the contraband of 21 packets is clear from the
statement of Subhashchandra Parmar (PW-5). He further submits
that procedure adopted by the Investigating Agency is in
contravention of the judgment of this Court passed in Net Ram
V/s State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(2) WLN 394 (Raj.).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contraband
was not recovered from the possession of the present petitioner.
He also submits that there is no recovery of contraband from the
present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than four and a
half years. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but he
is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner particularly to the fact of mixing
of the contraband of 21 packets as stated in the statement of
Subhashchandra Parmar (PW-5).
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the 2nd bail application filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Pintu S/o
Harji, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR
[2023:RJ-JD:37936] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6340/2023]
No.21/2019, Police Station Parsad, District Udaipur provided he
furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees: One
Lac Only) with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of learned
trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the
completion of the trial.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
39-SunilS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
