Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22994) on 13 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:22994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12329/2024
Bhagwana Ram S/o Jai Kishan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Vaganiyonniya Ki Dhani Dhamana, Police Station Sanchore,
District Sanchore (Raj)
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Sanchore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati
Mr. Bharat Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Suraj Bhann Singh, CI, SHO, P.S.
Sarwana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
13/05/2025
This 2nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.132/2024, registered at Police Station
Sanchore, District - Jalore for the offences under Sections 8/18 of
the NDPS Act.
The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner
being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4830/2024 has been
dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
12.06.2024 as not pressed.
[2025:RJ-JD:22994] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-12329/2024]
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
case of the prosecution, on 16.03.2024 on a secret information,
illegal narcotic contraband i.e. opium milk weighing 2 kg 651 gm
and the black opium like substance weighing 870 gm were
recovered from the Bara adjacent to the house of the accused-
petitioner Bhagwana Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner
argued that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case and the recovery has been planted upon him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that he
has no concern with the narcotic contraband allegedly recovered
from the Bara (open space) adjacent to the house as the recovery
of the same has been effected from an open place and the
possibility of putting the narcotic contraband by some other
person in that place cannot be ruled out. PW-1 - Hukmaram, the
Investigating Officer also could not establish the fact of having
original ownership/possession of the accused-petitioner Bhagwana
Ram over the Bara adjacent to the house from where the illegal
contraband was recovered as no document has been found or
placed on record with regard to the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
location of Ct. Mukesh is also found to be of Bikaner and not at
the spot. Some other police officials are also stated to be not
present at the spot at the time of seizure of narcotic contraband.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.
[2025:RJ-JD:22994] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-12329/2024]
Najmunisha Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. : Criminal Appeal
No.2319/2009, Abdul Hamid Chandmiya @ Ladoo Bapu Vs.
State of Gujarat : Criminal Appeal No.2320/2009 : (2024)
AIR(SC) 2778 and in the case of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Union of
India : AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1044. He also relied upon
the order dated 28.08.2024, passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Jagdish Vs. State : S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.10225/2024, order dated 09.12.2024,
passed in the case of Dinesh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan :
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9318/2024 and the
order dated 04.04.2024, passed in the case of Sunil Vs. State of
Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail application
No.238/2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
charge-sheet has been filed in the mater and the accused-
petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.03.2024 and the trial of
the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that illegal narcotic contraband
i.e. opium milk weighing 2 kg 651 gm and opium like black
material weighing 870 gm were recovered from the Bara house of
the accused-petitioner Bhagwana Ram which was in his conscious
possession.
While submitting the factual report dated 12.05.2025,
learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the investigation
carried out in the present case, it is revealed that accused
[2025:RJ-JD:22994] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-12329/2024]
Bhagwana Ram after purchasing opium milk weighing 2.651 kg
from the co-accused Jitu Singh @ Jitendra Singh with the intention
to increase its weight, mixed the opium like black coloured
material in it and thereafter hide it in the small pit in his house.
Cash amount Rs.15,97,750/-, electronic weighing machine which
was kept for the purpose of weighting the opium and plastic
pouches were also recovered from the spot. Accused-petitioner is
actively involved in the present case and he has committed a
serious crime under the NDPS Act. The recovered narcotic
contraband are above the commercial quantity. The accused-
petitioner is involved in the business of sale/purchase of the illegal
narcotic contraband and he was also found in possession of the
same without having any valid license. Therefore, he prayed that
considering the recovered quantity which is above the commercial
quantity and also looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of
bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
This Court finds that from the Bara adjacent to the house
alleged to have been in possession of the present petitioner,
alleged narcotic contraband was recovered, which is above the
commercial quantity. Cash amount Rs.15,97,750/-, electronic
weighing machine which was kept for the purpose of weighting the
opium and plastic pouches were also recovered from the spot.
These things clearly suggest that the accused-petitioner was
involved in the business of sale/purchase of the illegal contraband
without having valid license.
The facts with regard to ownership/possession of the
petitioner-accused over the Bara adjacent to the house shall be
[2025:RJ-JD:22994] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-12329/2024]
determined by the learned trial Court on merit at the time of final
argument. The fact with regard to the location of the mobile
phone of the witness shall also be decided by the learned trial
Court. The statements of witnesses recorded during the trial, their
cross examination are the subjects to be determined by the
learned trial Court on merits at the time of final arguments. No
comment can be made on these aspects at this stage. The
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS are duly satisfied in the
present case.
The judgments of the Hon'ble Suprme Court, relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, relate to conviction of the
accused and the same are on merits of the case, whereas in the
present case, the trial has not completed yet. The orders of the
Coordinate Benches of this Court, relied upon by the learned
counsel, are on different facts. Hence, these judgments and orders
do not give any help to the petitioner-accused.
This Court finds that at this stage, when the other relevant
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it cannot be said
that the accused has not committed any offence. The involvement
of the accused in the commission of offence can be ascertained
only after recording of the statements of the witnesses. No
comment can be made on the merits/demerits of the case at this
stage.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
The 2nd bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.
[2025:RJ-JD:22994] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-12329/2024]
The factual report dated 12.05.2025 is taken on record.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
6-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
