Allowed

Shiv Lal v. State

Rajasthan HC29 Nov 2018CRLMB/2803/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Lohra allowed the second bail application of the accused, Shiv Lal, facing trial under the NDPS Act. The Court, relying on Netram case, was persuaded by the substantial change in circumstances due to laconic sample collection procedure by the Seizure Officer, noting it diminished conviction prospects without commenting on merits personally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two surety bonds of like amount to trial Court.

Shiv Lal Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 2803/2018

¶3

Shiv Lal S/o Nathudas Vaishnav, R/o Javda Nimdi, P.S. Javda, District Chittorgarh.

¶4

(At present lodged in District-Jail, Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, PP.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶11

Order

¶12

29/11/2018

¶13

Accused-petitioner has preferred this second bail application while facing trial for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act before Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.55/2017.

¶14

First bail application on behalf of petitioner was dismissed on 6^th of November, 2017.

¶15

Arguing on the second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that after rejection of first bail application, there is substantial change in the circumstances. It is submitted by learned counsel that during trial statement of Seizure Officer P.W.7 Tulsiram is recorded and as per his statement, it is crystal clear that procedure for drawl of sample was laconic. Learned counsel further submits that the Seizure Officer out of 237 bags containing poppy straw collected 100 gms. from each bags and then mixed the same for preparing two separate samples from the mixtures.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-2803/2018]

¶18

He, therefore, submits that this sort of procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer has substantially diminished conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 8 read with Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered in case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2014(2) WLN 394 (Raj.)].

¶19

Per contra, learned counsel has opposed this bail application.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on ratio decidendi in the case of Netram (supra), while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this second bail application.

¶21

Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Shiv Lal S/o Nathudas Vaishnav, arrested in connection with FIR No.15/2017, registered at Police Station Kanera, District Chittorgarh, 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

¶22

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶23

110-a.asopa/-

Shiv Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Lal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Ashok Kumar Vs State

Kailash Vs State