Dismissed

Rupa Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2020CRLMB/4914/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under Sections 8/15/22 of the NDPS Act involving commercial quantities of drugs, the High Court dismissed the plea at this stage without expressing an opinion on merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application after the seizure officer's statement.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; liberty to file fresh bail application after statement of seizure officer.

Rupa Ram Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4914/2020

¶3

Rupa Ram S/o Prema Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Acharya, R/o Bhaum Akhe Singh Bhaneka Gaon, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.P.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶9

Order

¶10

06/07/2020

¶11

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.3/2020, Police Station Kolayat District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 8/15, 22 of NDPS Act.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that recovery place belongs to other person. As per the document at page No.56 and as per the statement of Bhanwar Ram at page No.31 of the present application, he was doing work at tyre puncture shop, therefore, petitioner was wrongly implicated in this case.

¶14

On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that on secret information by informant, upon raid, accused-petitioner was found

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-4914/2020]

¶17

at the place of the occurrence and was also identified through dragon light. He further stated that total 950 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride and 62 kgs of poppy husk were recovered, which is commercial quantity. He also stated that evidence of prosecution is yet to be started.

¶18

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offences, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.

¶19

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.

¶20

However, petitioner is at liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of seizure officer.

¶21

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶22

6-/-Arvind

Rupa Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupa Ram 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

Narpat Singh @ Nepal Singh Vs State

Lokendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Jenual Abideen Vs State of Rajasthan

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Vs State

Kumbha Ram Vs State

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Gabbar @ Rahul Vs State