Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajesh Kumar vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jd:8954) on 21 February, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:8954]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7831/2023
Rajesh Kumar S/o Vishwanath Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Gram Musaila, Police Station Mohanpur, Distt. Gaya (Bihar)
(Lodged in Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through NCB.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek, Spl.PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
21/02/2024
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in
connection with F.I.R. No.VIII[10]/03/NCB/JZU/2020 of NCB,
Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 8/18 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on
record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no
recovery of contraband from the possession of the present
petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused persons from
whom the recovery of contraband has been made have already
been enlarged on bail by this Court. He prays that since the
petitioner is 75% handicapped, therefore, he may be enlarged on
bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:8954] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7831/2023]
4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that
the petitioner is involved in similar nature of cases being Case
No.119/2022 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, Case
No.1/2021 registered at ASZ, NCB, Ajmer & Case No.9/2018
registered at NCB, Jodhpur and therefore, he is a habitual offender
and involved himself in drug trafficking in the State of Rajasthan.
He further submits that the antecedent report of the petitioner
clearly suggests that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is
every likelihood of him getting involved in drug trafficking/offences
of the same nature again. He also submits that huge quantity of
contraband (33 Kgs. of Opium) has been recovered in the present
case.
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that on
earlier occasions, although the petitioner was enlarged on bail,
however, on cancellation of the bail application filed before this
Court, the same was allowed and the bail granted by this Court
was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender within
a period of thirty days. However, the petitioner did not surrender
before the jail authorities in time and ultimately, after a period of
two years when the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of
cancellation passed by the High Court, the respondent authorities
took the custody of the petitioner, therefore, in such a situation, if
the benefit of enlargement on bail is granted to the petitioner, he
is likely to misuse the same.
6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also submits that the case
of the present petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the case of
[2024:RJ-JD:8954] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7831/2023]
the co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail as the
release of the co-accused persons was on the basis of custody
period which they have undergone and admittedly, the petitioner
has not undergone the custody period equivalent to the co-
accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail. He, therefore,
prays that the bail application may be rejected.
7. I have considered the submission made at the bar and gone
through the relevant record of the case.
8. Admittedly, in the present case, a huge quantity of Opium
i.e. 33 Kgs. has been recovered. The allegation against the
petitioner is of supplying the opium. The petitioner is found
involved at least in three more cases of dealing in narcotic
substances in the State of Rajasthan and three different FIRs have
been registered against him and the trial of the same are pending
consideration before the trial Courts. This Court feels that the
liberty granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on
bail has been grossly misused by him by involvement in the
offences of the like nature repeatedly. The enlargement of the
person on bail is always on the ground that he will not involve
himself or commit the offence similar to the offence of which he is
accused or suspect of the commission of which he is suspected.
The involvement of the petitioner in the offences of like nature on
3 occasions clearly shows that he is misusing the indulgence
granted by the Courts by enlargement of the petitioner on bail.
The conduct of the petitioner shows that the society at large is
[2024:RJ-JD:8954] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7831/2023]
suffering on account of the involvement of the petitioner in such
crimes.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar V/s. Ashis Chatterjee: (2010) 14 SCC 496 has held as
under:-
"12. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V/s. Ashis Chatterjee: MANU/SC/
0916/2010: (2010) 14 SCC 496, while dealing with the
court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to
grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to
be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the
basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that
point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:
9...... among other circumstances, the factors [which are]
to be borne in mind while considering an application
for bail are:
(i). whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused
had committed the offence;
(ii). Nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii). Severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction
(iv). Danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v). Character, behaviour, means, position and
standing of the accused;
(vi). Likelihood of the offence being
repeated;
(vii). Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being influenced; and
(viii). Danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail."
10. The conduct of the petitioner is that despite the cancellation
of the bail, he has not surrendered before the authorities on time
and the respondents had to put in motion the entire machinery to
take the custody of the petitioner.
[2024:RJ-JD:8954] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7831/2023]
11. This Court takes note of the fact that if a person is involved
on a number of occasions in drug trafficking, then it can be said
that he is a habitual offender. It is also a fact that availability of
drugs and sale and distribution of the same in small places/cities
is increasing day by day causing lots of disturbances in the
families. The young generation is being ruined by the consumption
of drugs and therefore, this Court is not persuaded to take lenient
view in this case.
12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, considering the seriousness of the case and the
recovery of huge quantity of contraband from the possession of
the petitioner and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity
of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
77-Shahenshah/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
