High Court dismissed bail application of narcotic offender. Court held commercial quantity of opium recovered from premises implicating petitioner makes it unfit for bail before challan is filed.
Bail application dismissed; petitioner permitted to apply for bail after filing of challan.
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.
(1 of 2)
[CRLMB-10288/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10288/2021
Ladhulal Dhakad S/o Sankarlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bor Bavadi P.S. Begun Dist. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
22/10/2021
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.65/2021, Police Station Churu Sadar, District Churu, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per prosecution, 7 Kg. 500 Gram opium recovered from co-accused Surendra Singh and Vimal Kumar; only on the basis of the statement of co-accused, petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case for the offences punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act; except the statement of the co-accused, there is no evidence against the accused-petitioner; no other case is
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-10288/2021]
registered against the accused-petitioner; further investigation and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that call detail report obtained by the Investigating Officer during investigation and account no. of accused-petitioner is also collected during investigation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that there is no evidence against the accusedpetitioner except the statement of the co-accused and the recovered quantity is commercial quantity, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail, at this stage. However, petitioner is free to file fresh bail application after filing of challan.
Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.is dismissed.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
23-amit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in view of the evidence, including co-accused statements and call detail reports.
Whether the quantity of opium recovered qualifies as commercial quantity attracting speedy trial under the NDPS Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ladhulal Dhakad
State of Rajasthan
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
