Rajasthan High Court
Gordhan Tanwar S/O Champalal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:4490) on 25 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:4490]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 946/2024
Gordhan Tanwar S/o Champalal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Kanwarpura Police Station Ghatoli District Jhalawar (At Present
Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
25/01/2024
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.317/2023 registered at Police Station
Transport Nagar (Jaipur City East), District Jaipur City (East) for
the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed
the charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of
the NDPS Act.
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 the
prosecution case co-accused-Rajiv Singiwal was found in
possesion of 79.40 gram of smack. He submits that according to
the police interrogation of Rajiv Singiwal, contraband was provided
[2024:RJ-JP:4490] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-946/2024]
by the petitioner. He submits that except police interrogation of
the co-accused, no other evidence is available against the
petitioner. 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. He also submits
that co-accused Rajiv Singiwal has already been granted bail by
this court. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest 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 been registered against the
petitioner under the 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 recovery has
been made from the petitioner and co-accused who was found in
possession of contraband has already been granted bail by this
court; charge-sheet has been filed and 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 - Gordhan Tanwar S/o Champalal, 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
Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
[2024:RJ-JP:4490] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-946/2024]
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 first Monday of every month, 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 /18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
