Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2021CRLMB/3949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Mukesh Kumar arrested under NDPS Act after the Investigating Officer failed to point out incriminating evidence conclusively linking the petitioner to the crime, noting reliance on co-accused statements is insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Mukesh Kumar released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each for appearance until trial completion.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3949/2021

¶3

Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Padmaram, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Bhargav, R/o Behind Sadar Police Station, Bhargav Colony, Barmer, Dist. Barmer. (Presently Incarcerated In Sub Jail, Suratgarh, Dist. Ganganagar).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Salim For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rajpurohit, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

07/07/2021

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.34/2020 of Police Station Suratgarh Sahar District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22, 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police have apprehended co-accused Shankar Lal, Mahadev and Ganga Ram while they were carrying tablets/capsules containing narcotic substance Tramadol above commercial quantity. It is also submitted that as per the chargesheet, during the course of investigation the above named coaccused persons while in police custody had supplied information

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-3949/2021]

¶17

to the police that they procured the said narcotic substance from the co-accused Govind. The police thereafter arrested Govind, who while in police custody informed the police that he has procured narcotic substance from the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that solely on the basis of the said information the police arrested the petitioner and filed charge-sheet against him for the offences punishable under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. It is also submitted that it is well settled law that any information supplied by a co-accused person while in police custody is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention towards the statements of Investigating Officer PW-1 Suresh Kumar and has argued that from his evidence, it is clear that he has failed to point out any incriminating evidence concluding involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. It is further submitted that in such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

¶20

of the case and after going through the charge-sheet as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-1 Suresh Kumar wherein, he has admitted that evidence regarding connection between the petitioner and the other co-accused Govind was collected by him but he has not stated that the evidence regarding his link between the persons from whom the narcotic contraband has been recovered is available on record, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-3949/2021]

¶23

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Padmaram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.34/2020 of Police Station Suratgarh Sahar, District Sri Ganganagar provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶24

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶25

Surabhii/90-

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar 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

Ogar Ram Vs Govind Kumar

Indrachand Vs Thana Ram

Indrachand Vs Phula Ram

Ram Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Nu Vista Limited, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nu Vista Limited Vs State of Rajasthan