Rajasthan High Court
Ramprasad S/O Ramkuwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:367) on 3 January, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:367]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10775/2023
Ramprasad S/o Ramkuwar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village
Choru, Police Station, Aligarh, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (At
Present Confined In District Jail Tonk)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Non-Petitioner
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav for
Mr. Bharat Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
03/01/2024
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was
arrested in connection with FIR No. 148/2023 registered at Police
Station Aligarh District Tonk for the offence(s) under Section 8/20
of NDPS Act.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused-applicant
that the accused-applicant is aged 34 years, who is the primary
bread earner of his family. The accused-applicant has been in
judicial custody since 04.08.2023. As per the record, no criminal
antecedents are reflected against the accused-applicant.
Furthermore, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Section
2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, which defines the contraband 'ganja' as
well as Section 2(viia), which defines 'commercial quantity' and
has averred that the quantity of the contraband recovered is of
[2024:RJ-JP:367] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10775/2023]
20kgs, whereas as per Section 2(viia), the commercial quantity
prescribed is ought to be greater than the quantity notified i.e. 20
kgs. Therefore, since the quantity so recovered in the instant
matter is not greater than the quantity prescribed, it cannot be
said that the recovery so effectuated is of a commercial quantity.
Learned counsel has further averred that the procedure
established by way of Section 52 of the NDPS Act was not
followed, as presentation/production before the Magistrate was
not affected, contrary to the mandatory requirement imposed by
the Act. In support of the arguments advanced herein-above,
reliance was placed upon judgment of Delhi High Court in Ranjeet
Singh Vs. State (CRLA No. 89/2011) and High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Salim Vs. State (CRM-M-31970-2022).
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the instant bail application. However, he was not able to
counteract the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
accused-applicant qua the definition of 'commercial quantity', as
prescribed by the NDPS Act, requiring the quantity so seized to be
greater than the notified quantity as prescribed for the
contraband, for the same to be categorized as commercial
quantity.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
both the sides and taking note of the fact that no criminal
antecedents are reflected against the accused-applicant; that the
accused-applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.08.2023;
that the accused-applicant is aged 34 years and is the primary
[2024:RJ-JP:367] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10775/2023]
bread earner of his entire family; that the notified quantity of the
contraband involved i.e. ganja is 20kgs, whereas as per the
definition of 'commercial quantity' as prescribed by Section 2(viia),
for the recovery to be commercial in nature, the quantity of the
contraband so seized ought to be greater than the notified
quantity; that in the instant matter, the quantity of the contraband
so seized as well as the quantity so notified for the contraband are
both 20kgs, thereby circumventing categorization under the
category of 'commercial quantity'; that prima facie, mandatory
provisions of Section 52 requiring production before the Magistrate
were not followed by the investigation authorities and
cumulatively looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case but without commenting upon the merits/demerits, this Court
is inclined to allow the instant bail application.
6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant Ramprasad S/o
Ramkuwar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to do so.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
