High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by an accused in an NDPS case. The Court held that recovery of the mobile/SIM is not essential when a call detail report with Section 65-B Evidence Act certificate is available. Bail was refused pending recording of IO's statement.
The bail application was dismissed accordingly.
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 Misc. Bail Application No. 5910/2021.
Surendra Singh @ Shailendra Singh S/o Shri Tarsem Singh, aged about 32 years, Resident of 8 KPD, Tehsil Rawla, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Anoopgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Shreedhar Purohit with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Deepak Korpal. | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan,PP. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
19/08/2021
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 FIR No. 11/2020, Police Station Gharsana, District Sriganganagar (correct Police Station Rawla), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”).
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-5910/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the contraband in question, i.e., Tramadol Tablets , has not been recovered from the accused-petitioner; that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, the present petitioner has wrongly been implicated in the present case; that there is no other evidence which could connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery of the contraband; that the trial will take time and, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that the call detail report in regard to the accusedpetitioner, as collected during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer as well as the Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, as furnished by the service provider company of the concerned mobile number, have been submitted by the prosecution for the reason that the accused-petitioner has regularly having been in contact with the other co-accused persons, therefore, considering the involvement of the accusedpetitioner, benefit of bail may not be granted to the petitioner.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that neither the mobile nor any sim was recovered from the accusedpetitioner; that the mobile number, as mentioned in the call detail report, has not been belongs to the accused-petitioner; that there is no evidence which could verify the fact that this number, as mentioned in the call detail report, belongs to the accusedpetitioner.
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-5910/2021]
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that the call detail report has been submitted along with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. This Court is of the view that for collecting the call detail report, neither recovery of mobile nor any sim is essential because, call detail report can be obtained only on the basis of the number which is used in that mobile. This Court is also of the opinion that recovery of mobile and sim is essential in the cases where any photographs or video is to be seen or obtained from that mobile instrument, i.e., the mobile. In the present case, simply because the sim number as mentioned in the call detail report has not been issued in the name of the accusedpetitioner, it cannot be said at this stage that the mobile was not used by the accused-petitioner.
In view of the observations foregoing, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant the benefit of bail in favour of the accusedpetitioner at this stage before recording the statement of the Investigating Officer and, therefore, this bail application deserves to be dismissed.
The instant bail application moved under Section 429 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Surendra Singh @ Shailendra Singh S/o Tarsem Singh, is dismissed accordingly.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
4-Mohan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the case is fit for bail considering the reliance on call detail reports obtained without mobile recovery.
Whether the failure to recover the SIM card invalidates the evidence for bail-denial purposes.
Whether the Investigating Officer's statement must be recorded before granting bail in NDPS cases involving mobile contacts.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Surendra Singh @ Shailendra Singh
State of Rajasthan
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
