Rajasthan High Court
Sohanlal Nayak S/O Bhairulal ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 13 October, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:29499]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14409/2022
Sohanlal Nayak S/o Bhairulal Nayak, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Rupaheli, Police Station Bhilwara Sadar, District Bhilwara
( At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr Atul Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
13/10/2023
The instant application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since
09.09.2021 in connection with FIR No.265/2021 registered at
Police Station Bhinay District Ajmer for offence under Section 8/15
of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has falsely been implicated in this case. He is in custody since
09.09.2021 and as such, till date, he has suffered incarceration of
nearly two years and one month. He submits that period of
custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. He
further draws attention of this Court to the fact that till date, out
of 25 cited witnesses, not even a single witness has been
examined at trial. He thus, submits that trial will take long time in
[2023:RJ-JP:29499] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14409/2022]
its conclusion. He also submits that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents under the NDPS Act.
Counsel for the petitioner also contends that the work of
drawing sample was not done in accordance with the provisions of
sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The process of
drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the
supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be
certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-
compliance of this provision of law. He placed reliance on the
following judgments:- (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr :
(2016) 3 SCC 3749 and (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh:
2023 SCC online SC 862.
He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in which
period of incarceration has been considered relevant for grant of
bail:-
1. Raju Ram vs State of Bihar : (2023) 1 Supreme 670
2. Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022
3. Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : Crimial
Appeal No.668/2020
4. Tapan Das vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.5617/2021
5. Ghanshyam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019
6. Nadeem vs State of UP (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.1524/2022
[2023:RJ-JP:29499] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14409/2022]
7. Suresh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd
Bail Application No.16118/2022, decided on 04.01.2023)
8. Govind vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail
Application No.426/2023, decided on 17.02.2023)
He submits that in all these cases, bail was granted only on
the ground of period of incarceration. He submits that in the case
of Raju Ram (supra), it has been held that on the basis of period
of incarceration, bail can be granted by relaxing the provision of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that contraband dodapost weighing 555
Kgs. was recovered from the vehicle (Pickup No. RJ 06 GB 2982),
being driven by the petitioner, which is commercial quantity and
considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should
not be granted.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
perused the material available on record.
As per record, the petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2021
and thus, he has suffered incarceration of nearly 2 years and 1
month till date. It also appears from the record that till date, not
even a single witness has been examined at trial and thus, the
fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being
violated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to different
[2023:RJ-JP:29499] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14409/2022]
accused persons by considering the period of incarceration of
about two years or more.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody since
09.09.2021, and out of total 25 cited witnesses, not even a single
witness has been examined so far, and in similar fact situation,
benefit of bail has been extended to the accused persons by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court who have suffered
incarceration of 2 years or more so also as per the FIR, samples
were drawn in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Mohanlal reported
in (2016) 3 SCC 379, without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept
the instant bail application.
Thus, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that
accused petitioner Sohanlal Nayak S/o Shri Bhairulal Nayak,
arrested in connection with FIR No.265/2021 PS Bhinay, District
Ajmer shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that
Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all
subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
[2023:RJ-JP:29499] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14409/2022]
However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve
in similar offence(s) during pendency of bail granted by this Court.
The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the
concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is
concluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or
come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason
for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
