Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed at this stage as not pressed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application to the Court. No substantive decision on bail grounds was recorded.
Bail application dismissed at this stage; liberty granted to file fresh bail application.
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 Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5940/2021
Ramrakh Ram @ Ram Lal @ Rama S/o Karna Ram, Aged About 47 Years, Dholiya, Lathi Police Station, Tehsil Pokaran, Dist. Jaisalmer
(Lodged In Sub Jail, Bhinmal). ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi Mr. Manohar Singh Hada Mr. Tanay Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 04/08/2021
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 F.I.R. No.17/2019, Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore, registered for the offence under Section 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing attention of this Court towards page number 8 of the charge-sheet, stated that the mobile number of the petitioner has been mentioned; it is an admitted position that during the investigation,it has not been proved that the alleged poppy-husk has been loaded by the petitioner and the same has been handed over to co-accused Shivlal; no telephonic conversation has been made between the petitioner and other co-accused persons namely, Shivlal and Prakash Chandra. He further stated that in the first information
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5940/2021]
available at page No.37 of the charge-sheet, co-accused Shivlal stated that contraband has been recovered from Neemach, Madhya Pradesh; in the second information, it has been stated that contraband has been brought from co-accused Prakash Chandra and in the third information, name of the petitioner has been divulged although, the mobile number of the petitioner has been mentioned in the charge-sheet but, there is no call detail report which shows that the petitioner had a conversation with other co-accused persons. He lastly stated that the petitioner, by profession, is a carpenter in the shop of Jagdish Suthar, therefore, location of the petitioner is the same, as was of the co-accused persons but there is no conversation between the petitioner and other co-accused. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that one another charge-sheet has been filed which is tagged with the first charge-sheet; as per page No.9 of the second charge-sheet, point No.1 and 2 shows call detail report of the petitioner’s mobile No. 6378375237 , which has been collected during investigation and as per that information, location of the accused-petitioner on the dates 12.01.2019 and 13.01.2019 has been traced at Nimbahera and Bashedi and there is a telephonic conversation between the accused-petitioner and co-accused persons namely, Shivlal and Prakash Chandra. He further stated that a certificate in regard to above call detail report is available at page No.31 and 37 of the second charge-sheet. As per page No.31
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-5940/2021]
of the second charge-sheet, there is a telephonic conversation between co-accused Shivlal and the accused-petitioner on their respective mobile numbers, i.e., 6376537694 and 6378375237 ; similarly, it is proved that there is telephonic conversation between the accused-petitioner and other co-accused namely, Prakash Chandra’s mobile No. 9784587195 , therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that except the location of the accusedpetitioner and the other co-accused persons, there is no telephonic conversation between the accused-petitioner and other co-accused persons and there is no evidence except to the mobile number of the accused-petitioner.
At this juncture and after dictating this much of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Court that he does not want to press the present bail application at this stage but seek liberty for the petitioner to move fresh bail application.
Accordingly, the present bail application moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner - Ramrakh Ram @ Ram Lal @ Rama S/o Karna Ram stands dismissed at this stage as not pressed with liberty as prayed for.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
11-Rashi/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who is in judicial custody for NDPS offences.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramrakh Ram @ Ram Lal @ Rama
State of Rajasthan
Deendra Kachhawa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
