Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018CRLMB/1314/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the petitioner, an N-drug possession accused, noting prima facie satisfaction regarding compliance with NDPS bail conditions due to serious discrepancies in police vehicle numbers during the Nakabandi operation and delayed FSL examination.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of like amount before the trial court.

Ashok Kumar Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 1314/2018

¶3

Ashok Kumar S/o Choukha Ram, By Caste Bishnoi, aged about 22 years, resident of Isarwalo Ki Dhani, Dayakor, P.S. Lohawat District Jodhpur. (At present lodged in District Jail, Pali).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Hanuman Khokhar. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, PP.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶9

Order

¶10

29/11/2018

¶11

Accused-petitioner, who is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 8 read with Sections 15 & 18 of the NDPS Act in Sessions Case No.264/2017 pending before Sessions Judge, Pali, has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The sessions case has arisen out of FIR No.99/2017 registered at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali.

¶12

First bail application, on behalf of petitioner, was dismissed on 14^th of November 2017.

¶13

Arguing on second bail application, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that after rejection of first bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. For substantiating his

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLMB-1314/2018]

¶16

contention, learned Senior Counsel has urged that as per FIR during Nakabandi vehicle carrying contraband was intercepted and recovery of contraband was made using police vehicle bearing No.RJ-22-UA-4255 but as per Rojnamcha Entry No.89 on the same day at 9:00 PM, R awangi of police jeep bearing No.RJ-22UA-1277 is mentioned. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that copy of FIR and Rojnamcha is obtained by petitioner under the Right to Information Act, and upon perusal of both serious discrepancy about the police vehicle numbers in FIR and Rojnamcha is clearly discernible. Learned counsel has, therefore, argued that the entire recovery is farce and it is a clear case of false implication of the petitioner.

¶17

With a view to authenticate his argument in this behalf, learned Senior Counsel has also referred to statements of Mr. Devi Singh Sub-Inspector, Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali, Mr. Gani Mohd. ASI and Constables Ramkaran, Narpatram, and Kishanaram, who were members of the police party arranging Nakabandi . As per contention of learned Senior Counsel, police statements of all these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are also clear and unequivocal showing Vehicle No.RJ-22-UA-4255 used during Nakabandi and patrolling. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that as per statements of all these witnesses, vehicle number shown in Rojnamcha is different from FIR and therefore the entire operation allegedly carried out by the police is per se suspicious putting the alleged recovery of contraband in serious jeopardy. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that in the wake of serious discrepancies in the number of police vehicle used, the shadow of doubt pertaining to the alleged

¶18

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-1314/2018]

¶19

recovery of contraband can very well be considered by the Court at this stage for granting indulgence to the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that samples in the matter were drawn on 8^th of June, 2017 but same were sent for FSL examination after four days i.e. on 12^th of June 2017 is a clear case of gross violation of clause 1.13 of the Standing Order No.1 of 88, issued by NCB is yet another mitigating factor for favourable consideration of the bail plea of petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has lastly argued that petitioner was arrested on 8^th of June 2017 and so far only charges have been framed and evidence of prosecution has not commenced, therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, he may be released on bail.

¶21

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that recovery of 137 Kgs poppy husk is indicative of the fact that the same was above commercial quantity and therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted.

¶22

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced, perused the materials available on record and also considered the material change in the circumstances, vociferously canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account serious discrepancy about police vehicle which was used during patrolling and Nakabandi while intercepting the

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CRLMB-1314/2018]

¶26

vehicle and recovery of the contraband, in my opinion, prima facie, the Court can record its satisfaction about compliance of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act for extending benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Ashok Kumar S/o Choukha Ram, arrested in connection with FIR No.99/2017, registered at Police Station Guda Endla, District Pali, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so

¶28

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶29

109-a.asopa/-

Ashok Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheyshyam Vs State

Ram Swaroop Vs Chanda Devi and Ors.

Smt. Shubhavati and Anr. Vs Jodhpur V.V.N. Ltd.

Raju Ram Vs State

Shiv Lal Vs State

Kailash Vs State