Dinesh vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8077 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:33310] (1 of 3) [CRLMB-3746/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3746/2023

Dinesh S/o Shri Mangilal Vishnoi (Siyana), Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kanwas Ka Pana Ps Dangiwayas Dist. Jodhpur Raj. (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi Mr. Jayram Saran For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Nahar, Spl. P.P. CBN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

06/10/2023

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance

of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                             Particulars of the Case
     1.     Criminal Misc. Case No.                    38/2023
     2.    Concerned Police Station                    CBN Neemach
     3.    District                                    Neemach
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                 Sections 8/15, and 8/29 of
                                                       the NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any
                                                       --

6. Date of passing of impugned 11.01.2023 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the

[2023:RJ-JD:33310] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3746/2023]

accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based

on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application and submits that the present case is not fit for

enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record. In the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, what are

emanting from the record that certain quantity of contraband

came to be recovered when the vehicle was intercepted by

the team of CBN and one Ishaq Mohammed got apprehended

on the spot as he was plying the vehicle. It is the case of the

prosecution that the petitioner is the registered owner of the

vehicle and he was having knowledge and he handed over the

vehicle to one Ishaq Mohammed with the understanding that

he may use the vehicle for the purpose of illicit transportation

of the contraband, however, such consent is a state of mind

and as such physical evidence to this effect is not possible to

bring on record and it is to be inferred from the surrounding

circumstances. In this case the petitioner was already in

judicial custody in one other case at the relevant time, it can

be assumed that he was not having chance or opportunity to

contact any other person outside the jail, then prima facie it

can be presumed that he was not having knowledge. Though

there is a serious dent on the story of the prosecution, but no

final adjudication can be made at this stage and this court

[2023:RJ-JD:33310] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3746/2023]

would rather not make any comment in this regard. As far as

the question of admissibility of statement under Section 67 of

the NDPS Act is concerned, suffice it would be to say that

after passing of the judgment of the larger bench in the case

of Tofan Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31 as

the question is not merely raised now and the statement

recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act is due taken as which

is led by Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. There is

high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.

In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed

suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the

present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations

made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the

parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting

on the niceties of the matter.

5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner

as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided

he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with

two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 15-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)