Rajasthan High Court
Jodhraj S/O Ramdwar Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:10101) on 28 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:10101]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 789/2024
Jodhraj S/o Ramdwar Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Dhoti,
Police Station Atru, Distt. Baran (Raj.). (At Present Confined In
Sub Jail Atru, Distt. Baran (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
28/02/2024
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.343/2023 registered at Police Station Atru,
District Baran (Raj.) for the offences under Section 8/20 of NDPS
Act. Later on, Section 8/29 of NDPS Act has also been added.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He
submits that no contraband has been recovered from the
possession of the petitioner. He submits that according to
prosecution case, co-accused - Bhanwar Lal was found in
possession of 7.1 kg of ganja which is admittedly is less than
commercial quantity. He submits that petitioner has been made
accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of
the co-accused - Bhanwar Lal. He submits that interrogation of
[2024:RJ-JP:10101] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-789/2024]
the co-accused cannot be used against the petitioner as same is
hit by Section 25 of the evidence act. He further submits that co-
accused - Bhanwarlal has already been granted bail by this court.
Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of
Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. Petitioner is in
custody since 07.01.2024. Charge-sheet has already been filed
and trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of
the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and
submits that one other case has already been registered against
the petitioner under NDPS Act.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that no contraband
has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-
accused - Bhanwar Lal has already been granted bail by this
court; charge-sheet has been filed as well as looking to the
custody period, but without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail
application.
6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner - Jodhraj S/o Ramdwar Meena, he shall
be released on bail provided he 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
[2024:RJ-JP:10101] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-789/2024]
Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
with the stipulation that he 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.
7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve
in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court.
The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the
concerned police station on once in three months, till trial is
concluded.
8. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to
the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the
trial court to cancel the bail granted to petitioner by this Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
