Vijay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7867 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32683]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2482/2023

Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Gyanchand, Aged About 35 Years, Chak 1
Njep-A, Gram Panchayat Bajuwala, Teh. Raisinghnagar, Presently
R/o On Rent At Chak 5 G Saharanawali, P.s. Chunavadh, Dist. Sri
Ganganagar.          (In      Judicial       Custody        At         Central   Jail,   Sri
Ganganagar).
                                                                            ----Petitioner
                                          Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                          ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)                :    Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s)                :    Mr. Arun Kumar, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                           Order

04/10/2023

1.    The petitioner has been arrested in connection with CR Case

No.202/2020 of Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for the

offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 25 of NDPS Act. He has

preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has undergone a custody of more than three years. In support of

the petitioner's case, reliance has been placed on the following

judgment :-
    i. Rahul Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special
     Leave to Appeal Criminal No.3258/2022), decided on
     01.11.2022.
     ii. Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Petition for
     Special    Leave          to    Appeal       Criminal        No.4169/2023),
     decided on 11.11.2022.



                           (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 06:50:48 AM)
                                    [2023:RJ-JD:32683]                   (2 of 2)                    [CRLMB-2482/2023]


                                   3.    Learned Public Prosecutor submits that every judgment

                                   applies from fact to fact and a large quantity of contraband has

                                   been recovered in this case and that too has been directly

                                   confiscated from the present petitioner and there are seizure

                                   statements, which are directly framing the petitioner as accused,

                                   thus, no case is made out for grant of bail.

                                   4.    In light of the statement made by learned Public Prosecutor

                                   that the facts of the case do          not warrant grant of bail, being a

                                   peculiar case of large quantity of contraband directly recovered

                                   from the present petitioner and supported by the statement of

                                   witnesses and having regard to the totality of the facts and

                                   circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation

                                   and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the

                                   merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail under

                                   Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, while observing that the case

                                   laws cited at the Bar on behalf of the petitioner do not render any

                                   assistance to his case.

                                   5.    Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner

                                   under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.




                                                                 (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

408-Sudheer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)