Allowed

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Son of Shri Roodmal, by Caste Mahajan v. Narcotic Control Bureau through P.P.

Rajasthan HC17 Dec 2018CRLMB/9926/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act, noting discrepancies in the recovery report and granting bail due to suspected manipulation by authorities, while directing an inquiry to the Ministry of Home Affairs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. Order sent to Ministry of Home Affairs for investigation into N.C.B. improprieties.

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Son of Shri Roodmal, by Caste Mahajan… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail No. 9926/2018

¶3

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Son Of Shri Roodmal, By Caste Mahajan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Patan, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar. (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sikar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Narcotic Control Bureau Through P.P., Rajasthan

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. Rajvir Singh.
For N.C.B.(s) :	Mr. Kapil Sharma for Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

17/12/2018

¶11

Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

F.I.R. No. VIII(10)01/NCB/JZU/2018 was registered at Police Station NCB, Jodhpur for offence under Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that complaint has not been filed within 60 days, which is mandatory in view of the Section 161(2) of Cr.P.C. It is contended that from petitioner 16.500 kg of ganja was recovered, which is less than commercial quantity. Thus, the N.C.B. was required to file the complaint within sixty days. My attention has been drawn towards the Annexure-2, wherein it is mentioned that 40.150 kg of ganja was recovered

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9926/2018]

¶15

from car No.HR 43 C 5003. It is argued that one bag of ganja was recovered from car, is now shown to be recorded from the petitioner’s bag to make a commercial quantity and justify the filling of complaint beyond 60 days.

¶16

Learned counsel for N.C.B. has opposed the second bail application. His contention is that petitioner was carrying one bag of ganja when the N.C.B. team rounded him and the same was recovered from the petitioner. The total recovered ganja from the petitioner was more than 20 kg and hence, the same was commercial quantity and complaint could be filed within 180 days.

¶17

It is also contended that statement of petitioner was recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, wherein he has mentioned that he was carrying a bag containing ganja when the N.C.B. team rounded him.

¶18

I have considered the contentions.

¶19

It is evident from the perusal of the Annexure-2 that 40.150 kg ganja was recovered from the car. There is no document on record which points out towards the petitioner carrying one bag of ganja at the time when he was nabbed. There is no recovery of one bag of ganja from his presence. It is a clear case wherein N.C.B. team in order to save from scheme have manipulated the documents to show that the petitioner was in possession of more than commercial quantity of ganja. Petitioner is therefore, entitled to bail.

¶20

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-9926/2018]

¶23

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

However, copy of this order be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India to investigate and enquire as to whether there is infirmity in the complaint filed by the N.C.B. team and take appropriate action, if required against the defaulting officers.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J.

¶26

Chandan/2

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Son of Shri Roodmal, by Caste Mahajan v. Narcotic Control Bureau through P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiyalal Gupta Son of Shri Roodmal, by Caste Mahajan v. Narcotic Control Bureau through P.P.

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

Govind Kumar Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bhola Shankar Ramani Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ravi S/O Shri Ram Bhajan B/C Harijan Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Dev Karan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mohammad Roshan S/O Shree Subhan Sha Fakeer Musalman by Caste Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.