Chaina Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8070 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8070 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Chaina Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 6 October, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:33301]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12286/2023

Chaina Ram S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o- Bishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Bhaniya Village, Shivpura Police Station, District Pali. (Lodged In Sub Jail, Sojat)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

06/10/2023

The instant bail application has been filed by the

petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C in connection with FIR

No.20/2022 of Police Station Shivpura, District Pali, for the

offence under Section 472 of IPC and under Section 8/15 of

NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the

basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused-Mahendra

Kumar from whose conscious possession contraband greater

than commercial quantity was recovered. Learned counsel

further submitted that co-accused-Mahendra Kumar S/o

Roopa Ram has already been enlarged on bail by this Court

vide order dated 15.09.2023, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.14782/2022.

[2023:RJ-JD:33301] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12286/2023]

For ready reference, order dated 15.09.2023 is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.20/2022 registered at Police Station Shivpura, District Pali, for offences under Sections 472 IPC and 8/15 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Seizure Officer recorded before competent criminal court on 6.4.2023 as P.W.1, learned counsel submitted that Seizure Officer during cross-examination has admitted that the recovered contraband was mixed before drawing a sample for sending it to FSL. Learned counsel submitted that entire action of the Seizure Officer is contrary to 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 and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The relevant portion of the statement of the Seizure Officer (P.W.1) recorded before competent criminal court on 6.4.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

";g ckr lgh fd diMs dh FkSfy;ksa dh dHkh ljdkjh lIykbZ ugh vkrh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd lHkh lsEiy fudkyus ds ckn geus lHkh lsEiy dks vkil esa fgyk feykdj mlds ckn gh geus vyx vyx FkSfy;ksa esa Hkjk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd geusa lsEiy ds fy, X;kjg fdyks MksMk iksLr fudkydj mls vkil esa fgyk feykdj fQj geus mldh dqy 22 FkSfy;ka rS;kj dhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkt esjs lkeus U;k;ky; esa izdj.k esa fy;s x;s eqnk eky o lsEiy ekStwn ugh gSA"

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 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

[2023:RJ-JD:33301] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12286/2023]

expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner- Mahendra Kumar S/o Roopa Ram shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.20/2022 registered at Police Station Shivpura, District Pali, 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."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only

significant evidence available against the present petitioner is

the statements of co-accused-Mahendra Kumar and apart from

the statements of co-accused-Mahendra Kumar, there is no

other direct or corroboratory evidence available on record

indicating involvement of the present petitioner in the

commission of alleged crime.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from

that of the co-accused-Mahendra Kumar who has already been

enlarged on bail by this Court and therefore, no fruitful purpose

would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.