Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramswaroop vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:14150) on 27 March, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:14150]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2690/2024
Ramswaroop S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Jhotawali, Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar.
(Presently Lodged At Sriganganagar Jail).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
CONNECTED WITH
S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 11469/2023
Suraj Kumar @ Surja Ram S/o Hari Kishan, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Ganguwala Sikhan, Police Station Padampur, District
Sriganganagar.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Sriganganagar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priya Bishnoi
Mr. Pravesh Kumar Rawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
with Mr. Avinash Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/03/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of
accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
[2024:RJ-JD:14150] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2690/2024]
S. No. Particulars of the Case
Petitioner - Ramswaroop
2. Concerned Police Station Muklawa
3. District Sri Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 8, 21, 22 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any 29 of NDPS Act
6. Date of passing of impugned order 05.02.2024
Petitioner - Suraj Kumar @ Surja Ram
2. Concerned Police Station Muklawa
3. District Sri Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 8, 21, 22 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any 29 of NDPS Act
6. Date of passing of impugned order 18.08.2023
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on
conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsels for the
petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications
and submit that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
[2024:RJ-JD:14150] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2690/2024]
5. Admittedly, the recovery alleged to have been made from the
bags, which were carried out by the petitioners in their hand, but
no notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given. The Seizing
Officer has also been examined in the trial and he has admitted
that no such notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to the
accused persons and their personal search was made without
issuing any notice.
6. The legal position is now no more res integra that before
making a personal search, a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act
is required to be given and in absence whereof the recovery
vitiates. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment dated
29.10.2010 rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State Of Gujarat reported in
AIR 2011 SC 77, wherein it has been propounded that non
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act could vitiate the
recovery.
7. I am of the view that in the given circumstances, embargo of
Section 37 of NDPS Act would not come. There is high probability
that the trial may take long time to conclude and the petitioners
are in custody from last 3 years and 10 months. In light of these
facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit
of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439
Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each
of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
[2024:RJ-JD:14150] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2690/2024]
learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court
concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to
do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Abhishek Kumar
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
