Allowed bail to the accused-petitioner charged under the NDPS Act, holding that the seizure officer's offer of the third option during seizure constituted a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, thus satisfying the condition under Section 37.
The petitioner was released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.
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. 5993/2021
Pappu S/o Dhanraj Suthar, Aged About 32 Years, B/c Suthar, R/o Gulana, P.s. Begu Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh). )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Jyani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
02/08/2021
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.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the notice of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, third option was given by the Seizure Officer. Therefore, it is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr. [(2014) 5 SCC 345].
On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that recovered
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-5993/2021]
quantity is commercial quantity. He further stated that Section 37 is clearly attracted in this case, therefore benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that third option was given by the Seizure Officer during the seizure proceedings, which is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; this Court is of the view that condition under Section 37 is satisfied in this case, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Pappu S/o Dhanraj Suthar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.12/2020, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the 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.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
4-Bharti/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is allowable when the seizure officer gave the third option violating Section 50 of the NDPS Act, making Section 37 non-applicable.
Whether the benefit of bail can be granted due to the procedural violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act without opining on the merits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr.Relied on¶14
State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr. [(2014) 5 SCC 345] · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu S/o Dhanraj Suthar
State Of Rajasthan
DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
