Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 7962 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32584]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application No. 10214/2023

Sanjay Kumar S/o Parmanand Kumahar, Aged About 37 Years, Prabhat Nagar Colony, Hastinapur P.s., Hastinapur, Dist. Merath (Up). (Lodged In Sub Jail, Nimbahera).

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 03/10/2023 Pronounced on 05/10/2023

1. This criminal misc. fourth bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this bail application may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be release on bail."

2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.143/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Nimbahera,

District Chittorgarh for the offence under Section 8/15 of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short,

'NDPS Act').

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that on 26.06.2020, while there was

a blockage on the border of Ahirpura, by one Phulchand Tailor,

[2023:RJ-JD:32584] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-10214/2023]

Station House Officer (SHO), a vehicle (car) bearing registration

No. DL 8C AAM 8762 was coming from Nimach; when the said

vehicle was stopped, three persons, namely, Sanjay Kumar,

Suman and Sonu, were found sitting therein; thereafter, the

vehicle was searched, during course whereof, a contraband Doda

Post (poppy straw) weighing 70 kgs 100 gram was recovered;

whereafter the aforementioned FIR was registered and the present

petitioner alongwith other co-accused were arrested.

4. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6193/2021, was dismissed as

not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 04.06.2021, with

liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the

statements of the investigation officer and seizure officer.

4.1 The second bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B.

Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.11842/2021 was also

dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated

07.09.2021.

4.2 The third bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B.

Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No.10182/2022 was also

dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated

13.09.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is in judicial custody for last more than 3 years and the

trial of the case is likely to take a long time, and therefore, the

petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the similarly situated

co-accused persons, namely, Smt. Suman and Balu Singh have

[2023:RJ-JD:32584] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-10214/2023]

already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 15.02.2022 & 05.02.2021 passed

in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.1797/2022 & S.B.

Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.404/2021, respectively. It

was also submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish the

required bail bonds and surety bonds, in case he is granted bail.

5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the samples of the

contraband were not sent for FSL within a duration of 72 hours for

the necessary examination. Learned counsel also submitted that

the concerned police authorities did not follow the mandatory

procedure as laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and

therefore, violated the provisions of law.

5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cross-

examination, Phulchand Talior, the concerned SHO clearly stated

that as regards article No.11, there was no general seal graven

and the seal-chit of the article was also not done properly by the

concerned police authorities; thus, a procedural lapse was

committed during the search and seizure in question by the

concerned police authorities, which is against the mandatory

provisions of the NDPS Act.

5.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the following orders passed by Coordinate Benches of this Hon'ble

Court in:-

(a) Ramchandra Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 9454/2023, decided on 27.09.2023);

(b) Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 13504/2022, decided on 23.05.2023);

[2023:RJ-JD:32584] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-10214/2023]

(c) Dinesh @ Rinku Vs State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No. 3342/2020, decided on 07.09.2020);

(d) Shera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 16403/2022, decided on 17.07.2023);

(e) Govind Kumar Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No. 6434/2021, decided on 16.08.2021);

(f) Vinod Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No. 6047/2021 and other connected matter, decided

on 08.06.2021);

(g) Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.

136/2024, decided on 09.10.2017); and

(h) Rameshwar Lal @ Ramesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan

(S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535/2015, decided on 03.03.2016);

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

bail application, while submitting that the contraband in question,

as recovered in the present case, is quite more than the

commercial quantity, and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act are clearly applicable in the present case. It was also

submitted that there nothing on the record which could show any

violation of the procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act, and

that, the concerned police authorities have duly complied with the

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case along with orders cited at the Bar.

8. This Court observes that the petitioner was arrested in

connection with the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act

on count of the recovery of the contraband in question weighing

[2023:RJ-JD:32584] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-10214/2023]

70 kgs 100 grams without any permit/license. This Court further

observes that earlier three bail application seeking grant of bail to

the present petitioner have already been dismissed by this Hon'ble

Court.

9. This Court also observes that the entire evidence including

the statement of the witnesses recorded so far, are sufficient for

denial of bail to the present petitioner at this stage.

10. This Court further observes that at this stage, it appears that

the recovery of the contraband in question was made from the

petitioner by the concerned police authorities, after following the

due procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act.

11. This Court is conscious of the fact that in criminal cases

especially in bail cases, the Courts have to examine each fact and

circumstances before passing the order of denial or grant of bail to

the accused concerned, and therefore, whether the accused

deserves bail or not is to be examined on case to case basis. In

the present case, the petitioner was found involved in a heinous

offence and the contraband recovered in this case is much beyond

the commercial quantity, and such a crime is against the public at

large.

12. This Court also observes that learned counsel for the

petitioner could not satisfy this Court, as to how, in the present

factual matrix, as set out hereinabove, the orders referred at the

Bar on behalf the petitioner are of any assistance to the case of

the present petitioner.

13. Thus, looking into the nature of the offence in question and

having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

[2023:RJ-JD:32584] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-10214/2023]

as also the fact that the contraband in question recovered from

the petitioner is quite more than the commercial quantity, and

also looking into the stage of the case against the present

petitioner before the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined

to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage.

14. Consequently, the present fourth bail application is

dismissed. It is however, made clear that the observations, if

any, made in this order does not affect the pending trial of the

case against the petitioner before the learned Trial Court, on

merits.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)