Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:42631) on 16 October, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:42631]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12791/2024
Jassaram @ Jasraj S/o Shri Ratnaram Jat, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Baytu Panji, Dist. Barmer,raj. (Presently Lodged In
Rajsamand Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12210/2024
Ramesh S/o Girdhariram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jajiwal
Dhani Bishnoiyan, Ps Dangiawas, Dist. Jodhpur. (Presently
Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi
Mr. Divik Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA
Mr. Ravindra Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/10/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing instant applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance
of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Devgarh
3. District Rajsamand
[2024:RJ-JD:42631] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12791/2024]
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act &
Sections 332, 353 & 307/34 of
the IPC
5. Offences added, if any Sections 420, 467, 379 &411
of the IPC and Section 3/25 of
the Arms Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 20.08.2024
order(SBCRLMB No.12791/2024)
6. Date of passing impugned 16.08.2024
order(SBCRLM 2nd BA
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 are 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 an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Special 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 the parties and
have perused the material available on record.
5. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of
the present bail applications are that a police team of Police
Station Devgarh, Distt. Rajsamand intercepted a vehicle in which
contraband poppy husk was being carried by the accused.
Incidentally, the accused carrying the vehicle succeeded in making
their escape good. Upon effecting search and seizure of the
vehicle, around 615 Kg poppy husk came to be recovered and
whereafter usual investigation was conducted and a chargesheet
No.191/2012 dated 19.10.2012 got submitted in the Court
[2024:RJ-JD:42631] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12791/2024]
concerned against the accused Govardhan Nath, Prabhu Nath and
Prem Nath while keeping the investigation pending against the
present petitioners. The above named three persons were
subjected to trial and finally the learned trial Court acquitted them
from the charges vide judgment dated 17.11.2021 and for long 12
years, the investigation had been kept pending against the
present petitioners and suddenly they have been arrested without
collection of any new material. Now, they would have to undergo
the rigor of a criminal trial after more than a decade. The quality
of evidence is already available on record and nothing
incriminating came to be taken from their possession. Precisely, it
can be said that except the memo of arrest and some procedural
formalities, nothing has been collected afresh which may justify
their arrest after long lapse of 12 years.
6. Learned counsel Shri Kunal Bishnoi and Shri Divik Mathur
representing their respective parties have vehemently and
fervently contended that if evidence sufficient to bring home the
guilt of these two accused-petitioners was available with the
police then a chargesheet could be submitted against them by
taking resort of Section 299 Cr.P.C. but the same has not been
done rather the investigation kept pending against them under
Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C., which would mean that the
evidence against these petitioners were not complete rather deficit
and now after their arrest nothing has been added in the earlier
chargesheet, therefore, they have a good case for release on bail.
7. Considering the submission made at the bar more
particularly the fact that the investigation was pending under
[2024:RJ-JD:42631] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12791/2024]
Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. against these petitioners and
nothing incriminating has been found against them before
effecting their arrest as well as taking into account the fact that
the three accused namely Govardhan Nath, Prabhu Nath and Prem
Nath having the same charges, have been acquitted by the
learned Court of competent jurisdiction after a rigorous trial,
thus, looking to the factual aspect of the matter and the fact that
there is high probability that the trial may take long time to
conclude, this Court deems it just and appropriate to extend the
benefit of bail to the present petitioners also. Since in my firm
view, the fetter contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would
not come in the way of granting bail to them.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is 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 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
79-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
