Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indrapal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 February, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:8625]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 13674/2024
Indrapal Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Govt. School, v.p.o Rajpuriya, P.s. Gogamedi, Dist.
Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
12/02/2025
1. This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483
BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.60/2019, registered at Police Station
Bigod, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 8/15 and
8/25 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 17.04.2019 on the basis of a Parcha Kayami
(complaint) submitted by Shri Rajendra Tada, SHO of Police
Station Kachhola, an FIR No.60/2019 was registered at Police
Station Bigod, District Bhilwara as per which, on 17.04.2019,
when as per the instructions of S.P. Bhilwara, the team of Police
Station Bigod lead by its SHO was conducting nakabandi, the SHO
of Police Station Bigod saw an unnumbered white coloured Bolero
vehicle coming from Triveni towards NH758 and upon seeing the
[2025:RJ-JD:8625] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
police team, the driver of the offending vehicle turned the same
towards Jaliya. The SHO of Police Station Bigod immediately called
Shri Rajendra Tada (SHO of Police Station Kachhola) and asked
him to chase the offending vehicle as he suspected that the
offending vehicle might be carrying contraband. Thereupon, the
SHO of Police Station Kachhola as well as SHO of Police Station
Bigod with their respective teams chased the offending vehicle
which was going towards village Jaliya.
3. As per prosecution, after some time, the driver of the
offending vehicle fled away on foot, leaving the offending vehicle
behind. The SHO Police Station Kachhola after complying with the
procedure provided under the NDPS Act made a search of the
offending vehicle and recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw)
weighing 186 kgs. from 9 plastic sacks and two sacks made of
cloth.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and so also
the statements of the Seizure Officer Rajendra Tada recorded
before competent criminal Court, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the place where the search and seizure
proceedings were conducted, allegedly falls under the jurisdiction
of Police Station Bigod. Learned counsel submitted that since SHO
Police Station Kachhola had admittedly conducted the entire
search and seizure proceedings, the same is not only without
jurisdiction but is also in violation of Section 42(1) of the NDPS
Act.
[2025:RJ-JD:8625] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
5. Learned counsel further submitted that admittedly, at the
time when search and seizure proceedings were conducted, the
offending vehicle was abandoned by its driver and was not in
transit. According to learned counsel, since the offending vehicle
was not in transit, the provisions contained in Section 42 of the
NDPS Act ought to have been complied with.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the recovery
of the contraband in the present case is vitiated for want of
jurisdiction as well as due to non-compliance of the mandatory
provisions contained in NDPS Act. The petitioner has been
implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion; the
contraband has not been recovered from the conscious possession
of the present petitioner. To buttress his arguments, attention of
the Court was drawn towards the statements of Satyanarayan
(P.W.-01), Rishi Raj (P.W.-07), Gopal Lal (P.W.-08) and Rajendra
Tada (P.W.-10) recorded before the competent criminal Court.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.11.2021; no recovery is
due to be made from him; and investigation in the matter has
already been completed. On these grounds, learned counsel
implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that in the present case, the contraband greater than commercial
quantity has been recovered from a white coloured unnumbered
Bolero vehicle. During the course of investigation, it has been
found that the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending
[2025:RJ-JD:8625] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
vehicle. According to learned Public Prosecutor, looking to the
nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency, the
complicity of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged
crime cannot be ruled out. It was thus prayed that the present bail
application may be dismissed.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances, this Court prima facie finds that in the present
case, SHO Police Station Bigod had no previous specific
information about the contraband being transported in the
offending vehicle. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would apply where any
specific information has been received about the Narcotic Drug, or
Psychotropic substance, or Control substance in respect of which
an offence punishable under the NDPS Act has been committed. In
the present case, as noticed above, at the time when the SHO
Police Station Bigod suspected that contraband is being
transported in the offending vehicle, the said vehicle was 'in
transit' and therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act would not apply in the present case. This Court is conscious of
the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India through
Narcotics Bureau, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Nawaz Khan reported
in 2021 (10) SCC 100, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to hold that the question with regard to non-compliance of
Section 42 of NDPS Act is the one which should be raised in the
course of trial.
[2025:RJ-JD:8625] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13674/2024]
11. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court prima facie
finds that though the search and seizure proceedings have been
conducted in the present case by the SHO Kachhola, however a
case for the offence under the NDPS Act has been registered at
Police Station Bigod, in whose territorial jurisdiction, the
contraband was recovered. The act of SHO of Police Station
Kachhola in the present case is in absolute conformity with the
notification No. F. 1 (3) FD/EX/85-1, S.O.115 dated October
16, 1986 which reads as under:
"...xxx
Provided that when power is exercised by Police
Officer other than Police Inspector of the area
concerned such officer shall immediately handover
the person arrested and articles seized to the
concerned Police Inspector or S.H.O. of the Police
Station concerned."
12. It is also to be noted that the trial against the present
petitioner is at its fag end as out of the total 14 cited prosecution
witnesses, statements of 10 cited witnesses have already been
recorded before the competent criminal Court.
13. In view of the observations made herein above, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
14. Consequently, the present third bail application filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C (483 BNSS) is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
256-Divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
