Rajasthan High Court
Pappu Singh S/O Hari Singh vs State Of Rajsthan ... on 15 September, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:23362]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11504/2023
1. Pappu Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Harnawda Pitha Ka Kheda Police Station
Pidawa District Jhalawar (Raj)
2. Gajendraprasad S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Kotdi Police Station Pidawa District Jhalawar
(Raj)
3. Dheerap Singh S/o Dhanu Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Bani Ka Rasta Khokhriya Khurd Police Station
Pagariya District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In
Sub-District Jail, Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajsthan, Through P.P
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
15/09/2023
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioners who have been in
custody since 15.02.2023 in connection with FIR No.35/2023
registered at Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar for offences
under Sections 8/20, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. After investigation,
the police has filed chargesheet in this matter before the learned
court below.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case.
[2023:RJ-JP:23362] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11504/2023]
He contends that the petitioners have nothing to do with the
alleged recovery of contraband Ganja. Counsel submits that as per
prosecution case, contraband ganja weighing 71.820 Kgs. was
recovered from the truck No. RJ 17 GA 6864 and at that time, the
petitioners were there in the said truck. It is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the work of drawing samples was
not done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argues that 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 further argued that
inventory report of this case has not been filed along with
chargesheet. He also contends that the samples drawn from the
alleged recovery were deposited in the FSL on 22.02.2023 for
analysis purpose, after 72 hours of the recovery, which is in
violation of the mandatory provisions provided under the NDPS
Act. He places reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of
(1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr : (2016) 3 SCC 3749 and (2)
Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 SCC online SC 862.
4. He submits that after investigation, police has filed
chargesheet in the matter and trial will take considerable time in
its conclusion. The petitioners have no similar criminal
antecedents. He thus, prays that the instant application for bail
may be accepted and the petitioners may be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and
fervently opposes the bail application. He submits that contraband
[2023:RJ-JP:23362] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11504/2023]
ganja weighing 71.820 Kgs. has been recovered from the truck of
of the petitioners. He contends that looking to the quantity of the
recovered contraband, bail should not be granted.
6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
perusal the material available on record.
7. The process of drawing samples has not been done in the
presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate which is in
violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Further, apart from
non-filing of the inventory report along with the chargesheet, the
samples drawn from the alleged recovered were deposited in the
FSL for analysis purpose on 22.02.2023 after 72 hours of the
sampling, which is in violation of the mandatory provisions
provided under the NDPS Act. The petitioners are in custody since
15.02.2023 and trial will take long time in its conclusion.
8. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case especially the fact that after completion of trial, chargesheet
has been filed, the period of custody of the petitioners, absence of
criminal antecedents of the petitioners under the NDPS Act, so
also the fact that 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 have not been followed in the present case, but
without making any comments on the merits/demerits of the case,
I deem it just and proper to accept the instant bail application
9. Thus, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that
accused petitioners (1) Pappu Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, (2)
Gajendraprasad S/o Shri Mohanlal and (3) Dheerap Singh S/o Shri
Dhanu Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.35/2023 PS Dug,
[2023:RJ-JP:23362] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11504/2023]
District Jhalawar shall be released on bail provided each of them
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 they
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.
10. It is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in any
other similar offence during currency of the bail. In case, breach
of this condition is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the
trial court can cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
