Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratanlal vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jd:42431) on 17 October, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:42431]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9064/2024
Ratanlal S/o Champalal Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Lasdawan,
Tehsil Nimbahera, P.s. Sadar Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through CBN.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ali.
Mr. Aslam Khan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Nahar, Spl. PP for CBN.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
17/10/2024
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.1/2022 registered at Police Station C.B.N. Neemach
(M.P.), for offences under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/29 of the
NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, officials of CBN, Mandsaur, on 10.08.2022, received a
secret information about contraband being concealed in the house
and bada (open place) of one Ratan Lal. Acting on such
information, the team of CBN reached to the house of Ratan Lal
and in the presence of petitioner Ratanlal, his brother-in-law
Ramlal and his wife Smt. Mohni Bai, search was made and
[2024:RJ-JD:42431] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9064/2024]
recovered 7 Kgs. and 385 gms. opium and 10 Kgs. and 360 gms.
poppy husk/straw from a bada (open place) situated near the
house. As per the prosecution, the petitioner was present at the
place of incident and on being asked by the officials of the CBN, he
failed to show any valid licence for possessing or transporting the
contraband.
Learned counsel contended that the entire seizure
proceedings suffer from illegality. Drawing attention of the Court
towards the challan papers and the statements of seizure officer
recorded before competent criminal Court, learned counsel
submitted that neither the samples were taken nor the seizure
was made at the spot and all the memos of the investigation and
proceedings were prepared by the officials of the CBN in their
office situated at Neemuch, which is approximately 40-60 Kms.
away from the place of recovery. Placing reliance on the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2011 SC (Suppl.)
787, learned counsel submitted that non-collection of samples as
per the procedure laid down at the time of seizure, is an incurable
defect and the entire proceedings thus, come under a shadow of
doubt.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 10.08.2022 and the trial of the case is likely
to consume sufficiently long time; investigation against him has
already been completed; there is no likelihood of the petitioner
being involved in a criminal case of a similar nature, in case he is
enlarged on bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:42431] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9064/2024]
On the strength of the above mentioned arguments and on
these grounds, he thus implored the Court to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that
the entire seizure proceedings in the present case were not
conducted at the spot. Learned Public Prosecutor present before
this Court along with the Seizure Officer was also not in a position
to refute the fact that all the papers were prepared at CBN Office
at Neemuch which is about 40-60 Kms away from the place of
recovery.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds sufficient
merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that since the seizure memo was not prepared and
samples were not taken at the spot/place of occurrence, seizure
proceedings become doubtful, thereby affecting the credibility of
the prosecution case. This Court also prima facie finds that the
prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner
involving him in a case of similarly nature in case he is enlarged
on bail.
In the prima facie opinion of this Court, twin conditions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the instant case.
Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ratanlal S/o
[2024:RJ-JD:42431] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9064/2024]
Champalal Jat arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.1/2022
registered at Police Station C.B.N. Neemach (M.P.), shall be
released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
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
225-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
