Single judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur rejected bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a drug trafficking case, citing co-accused statements and call records, despite submissions on lack of commercial quantity.
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15616/2019
Shravan Kumar S/o Daulat Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Rolasar, Police Station, Bhanipura, District Churu (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In Hanumangarh Jail).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Government Advocate
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
----Respondent Kshamendra Mathur |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Gaurav Singh, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
05/02/2020
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.268/2018, Police Station Sadar Hanumangarh, for the offences under Section 8/21, 22,29 NDPS Act & Section 18(c)/27(b)ii of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was neither present on the spot nor any recovery has been made from him. He submits that the charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. The tablets recovered are not in the commercial quantity. He further submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Kailash Sharma and Shish Pal Singh.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-15616/2019]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the present petitioner has been named by the co-accused persons in the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Further, there are call details available on record at the relevant point of time between the petitioner and the co-accused persons. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
75-praveen/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under the NDPS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act at this stage of the trial.
Whether the petitioner's lack of presence at the spot and absence of commercial quantity of drugs entitle him to bail.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Shravan Kumar
State
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
