Mahendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7294 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7294 Raj
Judgement Date : 15 September, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 September, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2023:RJ-JD:29953]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14782/2022

Mahendra Kumar S/o Roopa Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani Bhandia Ps Shivpura Dist. Pali Raj.
(At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail Dist. Pali)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr.Divakar Sharma.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr.Mukesh Trivedi, P.P.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    ORDER

15/09/2023 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

[2023:RJ-JD:29953] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14782/2022]

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 expressing any

[2023:RJ-JD:29953] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14782/2022]

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