Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:9931) on 27 February, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:9931]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1361/2024
Rajal W/o Anoparam Ji, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Jat, R/o
Gawalo Ki Dhani, Gaderi, Police Station Bhopalgarh, Dist.
Jodhpur (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
27/02/2024
As per prosecution, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing
150 kgs. was recovered from an unnumbered white Creta car on
14.8.2022. The petitioner was found sitting in the said car at the
time when contraband was being transported in the offending
vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner is a lady of about 34 years of
age and she had no knowledge about the said contraband being
transported in the offending vehicle in which she was travelling
with the co-accused Amra Ram.
Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused Sanwar Lal
has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
4.8.2023 passed in S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4431/2023
and the case of the co-accused Sanwar Lal, who has already been
[2024:RJ-JD:9931] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1361/2024]
enlarged on bail, is not worse than the case of the present
petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that the investigation in the
matter has already been completed and the trial of the case will
take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be
granted to the accused-petitioner.
Reliance was placed on the order dated 29.1.2024 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mamata Begum @
Bewa @ Beguni @ Mamata Bibi Vs. The State of West
Bengal passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.68/2024,
order dated 19.10.2020 passed by this Court in the case of
Sawarna Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Cr. Misc.
Bail Application No.9435/2020, order dated 15.2.2022 passed
by this Court in the case of Smt. Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan
passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.1797/2022,
order dated 4.8.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Sanwar
Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail
Application No.4431/2023 and order dated 1.12.2023 passed
by this Court in the case of Bachan Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan
passed in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.11100/2022.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
case of the present petitioner is clearly distinguishable from the
[2024:RJ-JD:9931] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1361/2024]
case of the co-accused Sanwar Lal, who has already been
enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court also prima facie finds
that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession
of the present petitioner. This Court also prima facie finds that the
petitioner is an habitual offender and she is involved in at least
two other cases of dealing in narcotic substances. The petitioner is
presently facing trial for the offences punishable under various
Sections of the NDPS Act, in connection with FIR No.231/2019 and
FIR No.217/2018 registered at P.S. Bhopalgarh.
This court is also conscious of the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673, wherein
Hon'ble the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"......Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an
exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section
37(1). For granting the bail, the court must, on the
basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence with which he is
charged and further that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that
the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to
the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal
Procedure or any other law for the time being in force
regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the
matter of bail under the NDPS Act is uncalled for."
Similarly, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India vs. Md. Nawaz Khan reported in (2021) 10 SCC 100
considered the position of law with regard to Section 37 of NDPS
Act and held that the test which the High Courts are required to
apply while granting bail is that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the accused has not committed an offence and
[2024:RJ-JD:9931] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1361/2024]
whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Considering the seriousness of offences punishable under the
NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in
the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the
NDPS Act have been prescribed.
In view of discussion made herein-above, this Court is not
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
rejected.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
25-TarunGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
