Allowed

Suresh Kala v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Nov 2021CRLMB/5447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the petitioner arrested under sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. The court relied on the seizure officer's admission of non-compliance with Section 42(2) NDPS Act and procedural lapses in evidence to justify releasing the petitioner pending trial on a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Suresh Kala Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 4)

¶2

[CRLMB-5447/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 5447/2021

¶5

Suresh Kala S/o Sh. Sitaram Kala, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Balaya, P.s. Mundwa, Dist. Nagaur. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Bhilwara).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

25/11/2021

¶14

This Court has perused the material available on record.

¶15

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.08/2020 of Police Station Hameergarh, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court on 11.01.2021 as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to come after the statement of the Seizure Officer.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the cross-examination of Seizure Officer, particularly, out of the whole statement emphasises the following part of statement:-

¶18

“izn'kZ ih 1 yxk;r 4 dkfu Hkkjrflag dh dyeh gSA ;g dguk

¶19

lgh gS fd okgu dh ryk'kh ysus ls igys eq>s okgu esa eknd inkFkZ

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMB-5447/2021]

¶22

gksus dh 'kadk gks xbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus ekSds ls /kkjk 42 ¼2½ ,uMhih,l ,DV dh lwpuk mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ugha Hksth Fkh] vt[kqn dgk D;ksfd ;g pkal fjdojh dh ekeyk FkkA eky dk otu djuk o lsEiy fudkyuk fdrus cts izkjEHk fd;k] le; vkt eq>s ;kn ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QnZ tIrh fdrus cts rS;kj dh] le; vkt eq>s ;kn ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus tIrh ls igys uewuk lhy dh QnZ rS;kj ugha dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tIr'kqnk okgu esa vfHk;qDr lqjs'k dh igpku lac/kh nLrkost ugha feys FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd /kkjk 50 ds uksfVl izn'kZ ih 6 esjs Lo;a }kjk ryk'kh fyokbZ tkus ckcr rhljk fodYi fn;k gqvk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izn'kZ ih 7 esa tIrh l s igys esjs }kjk tks dk;Zokgh dh xbZ] mldk lEiw.kZ fooj.k vafdr ugha gS] vt[kqn dgk fd ipkZ dk;eh esa lEiw.kZ fooj.k vafdr gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tIr'kqnk eknd inkFkZ dk otu eSaus dVVks lfgr fd;k Fkk ,oa dVVksa dk vyx ls otu ugha fd;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd dVVksa dk otu vyx djus ds ckn tIr'kqnk eknd inkFkZ dk otu 48&49 fdyksxzke jg tkrk gks rks eSa ugha crk ldrkA vuqla/kku ckWDl esa 10&15 FkSfy;ka jgrh gSA uewuk lhy eSaus ekSds ij rS;kj ugha dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QnZ tIrh izn'kZ ih 7 yxk;r 10 ij esjs lkFk mifLFkr tkIrs ds fdlh lnL; ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QnZ tIrh okgu izn'kZ ih 9 ij ,QvkbZvkj uEcj vafdr ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd QnZ izn'kZ ih 11 /kkjk 52 ,uMhih,l ,DV ds uksfVl esa vfHk;qDr lqjs'k ds dCts ls fdruk MksMk pwjk tIr fd;k] bldk vadu ugha gSA”

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a contradiction as the Seizure Officer admits that Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was not complied with, though, he has partly admitted that he had inkled that the contraband in-question was there in the vehicle.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that this statement itself reflects that there was information with the Seizure Officer.

¶25

Counsel for the petitioner submits that points out that there

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMB-5447/2021]

¶28

is 18 days delay in sending the sample to FSL.

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner submits also points out that casual

¶30

statement of the Seizure Officer regarding recovery memo and the statement lacking crucial time details at the time of recovery, which ought to be read in favour of the petitioner at this stage.

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contraband inquestion was weighing 63 Kg.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that if it was a chance recovery, then compliance of Section 42(2) of NDPS Act was not called for. Learned PP also submits that the contraband in-question is of commercial quantity.

¶33

This Court taking into consideration prolong custody as well as while taking into consideration the statement rendered by the Seizure Officer indicating that he had knowledge about the contraband on one side and then admitting that he has not informed the higher officials, thus, did not comply with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act as well as the quantity of contraband and delay in sending samples for FSL examination as well as lack of fine details regarding recovery and there being no previous criminal antecedents of petitioner pertaining to NDPS law, does not induce confidence of this Court for continuing custody of the petitioner at this stage.

¶34

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CRLMB-5447/2021]

¶37

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Suresh Kala S/ o Sh. Sitaram Kala shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.08/2020 of Police Station Hameergarh, District Bhilwara 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.

¶38

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶39

68-nirmala/Sanjay-

Suresh Kala v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kala 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

Lalas Lrs and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Inderjeet Singh Vs State Irrigation and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.)

Mahesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Vs State

Deva Nath Vs State of Rajasthan