Dismissed

Chittar Lal @ Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2019CRLMB/8629/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was dismissed. The petitioner, sitting on a tractor where poppy straw was seized, claimed ignorance and alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court found it difficult to determine at this stage whether the petitioner was aware of the contraband.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Chittar Lal @ Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 8629/2019

¶3

Chittar Lal @ Chittarmal S/o Shri Mangi Lal Dhakad, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Dhakad, Resident Of Hathipura, Ratangarh, Police Station, District Neemach (Mp). (Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

19/09/2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner was sitting on the tractor, from which, the narcotic contraband poppy straw was recovered and he had no knowledge that the driver of the tractor is transporting the same. It is submitted that the petitioner simply took lift on the tractor and he was not involved in the commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Seizure Officer before seizing the narcotic contraband did not comply with the mandatory provisions enshrined under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-8629/2019]

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner was sitting on the tractor, in which, illegal poppy straw was being transported. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the police found that the petitioner was aware about transportation of illegal poppy straw in the said tractor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was conscious about the presence of illegal narcotic contraband in the tractor trolly. It is submitted that the Seizure Officer had complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act before seizing the narcotic contraband, however, the question of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act can only be decided at the conclusion of the trial after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties concerned.

¶17

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, after going through the charge-sheet, the statements of the Seizure Officer (PW-6) and material available on record, it is difficult to hold at this stage whether the petitioner was aware or not about transportation of illegal poppy straw in the tractor trolly seized by the Seizure Officer.

¶18

Hence, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and, therefore, this second bail application is dismissed accordingly.

¶19

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶20

1-msrathore/-

Chittar Lal @ Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chittar Lal @ Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Jaspal Vs State

Sumer Singh Vs State

Nand Lal Vs State

Farukh Mohammed Vs State

Moda Ram Vs State

Sampatdas Vs State