Dismissed

Ishaq Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Bail – Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2021CRLMB/5945/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur entertained a 439 CrPC bail application regarding NDPS Act offences. The court dismissed the application, holding that bank account deposits alone do not establish guilt without an opinion on the merits or recording of investigating officer statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; accused remains in judicial custody pending recording of relevant statements.

Ishaq Khan 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. 5945/2021

¶3

Ishaq Khan S/o Sh. Hakim Khan @ Hajir Khan, Age 32 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ki Dhani Jaloda, Presently Ward No. 5 Mandi Pilibanga, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶10

Order

¶11

21/10/2021

¶12

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.128/2020, Police Station Sadar Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offences under Section 8/15, 25, 29 of NDPS Act.

¶13

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that 150 Kg. Poppy straw recovered from co-accused Nirmal Singh @ Bittu and Jagdeep Singh @ Deepu; only on the basis of statement of above mentioned co-accused, petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case for the offences punishable under Section 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act; except to the statement of the co-accused, there

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-5945/2021]

¶17

is no evidence available against the accused-petitioner; and the 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.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application and stated that mobile no. of accused petitioner as well as mobile no. of other co-accused has been given in the charge-sheet which clearly shows that they were regularly in contact with the accused-petitioner. Since, conversation was made on whatsapp, therefore, call detail report could not be obtained. But, as per the charge-sheet, bank account no. of accused-petitioner Ishaq Khan was supplied by petitioner himself to Nirmal Singh and the bank account no. i.e. 51112696148 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and 35098119718 of SBI Bank were also mentioned in the chargesheet. It is also stated that bank account no. was sent on the mobile no. of Ishaq Khan i.e. 9781837376 and amount was deposited in the account of petitioner Ishaq Khan for purchasing the recovered contraband.

¶19

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per page 6 of charge-sheet, amount was deposited by Jagtar Singh @ Jagga Singh not by the accused-petitioner. He further stated that no amount was deposited on 3^rd or 4^th May, 2020.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that statement of bank account is also available in charge-sheet including bank account of the accusedpetitioner which shows that on various dates, amount was deposited in the bank account of accused-petitioner, simply on the

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-5945/2021]

¶23

basis of statement, it cannot be said that amount was deposited by whom.

¶24

In view of the above, 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, before recording the statement of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer.

¶25

Accordingly and in view of above submissions, the bail application preferred by the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶26

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶27

5-amit/-

Ishaq Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishaq Khan 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

Savitri @ Samasta Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Raju Panch Devla @ Rajmal Vs State

Tushar Kothari Vs State

Prakash Chaudhary Vs State

Pawan Kumar Vs State

Chhagan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan