Allowed

Mamraj Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2021CRLMB/6436/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to strictly comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act due to irregularities in the search, notice, and memo procedures. Consequently, Section 37 of the NDPS Act was attracted, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Mamraj Jat to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

Mamraj Jat Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMB-6436/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6436/2021

¶5

Mamraj Jat S/o Teja Ram Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bizasar @ Bizrasar, Seruna Police Station, District Bikaner, Presently Residing as Tenant of Mohan Lal's House, Surajpura, Vyas Colony Police Station, Bikaner, District Bikaner. (Lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.Ray Bishnoi, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶12

Order

¶13

17/08/2021

¶14

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.56/2018, Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with by the prosecution in this case; notice given for compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is available at page 9 and in the said notice it was not mentioned by the seizure officer

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-6436/2021]

¶19

that if a gazetted officer/Magistrate is not satisfied with the conduct proceedings, accused-petitioner may be discharged, hence it cannot be held that provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act fully complied with by the prosecution. Learned counsel further sated that secret information was received at 7:00 pm and the seizure proceedings conducted after sunset and before sunrise, despite of that, no search warrant was obtained for compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act; as per page 20, memo which was prepared under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, no separate memo in regard to search without warrant is prepared; as per examination-in-chief of PW-12 seizure officer Bharat Rawat, even it was also not mentioned that separate memo was prepared for search. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and stated that in the present case, 115 kgs poppyhusk have been recovered from the accused-petitioner which is commercial quantity and secret information was sent to the higher authority and notice under Section 50 of the NDPS was given by the seizure officer. He lastly, urges that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted in the present case.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that it was not mentioned in the notice given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that if a gazetted officer/Magistrate is not satisfied with the conduct proceedings, accused-petitioner may be discharged and information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is available at page 20 and in the said memo as well as in examination-in-chief in regard PW-12

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMB-6436/2021]

¶24

Bharat Rawat i.e. seizure officer, it was not mentioned that separate search warrant was obtained for search after sunset and sunrise and also it was not mentioned at page 20 that, izkIr lwpuk fo”oluh; gS ,oa ryk”kkh okj.V fy;s fcuk rRdky ryk”kh ugh yh x;h rks vfHk;qDr eknd inkFkZ dks [kqnZ&cqnZ dj ldrk gS] therefore, proceedings of seizure was conducted without search warrant, hence, in view of the above, it is clear that strict compliance of mandatory provision of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied by the seizure officer; and that this Court is of the view that the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisfied, 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.

¶25

Consequently, the present bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Mamraj Jat S/o Teja Ram Jat, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.56/2018, Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) and two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) 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.

¶26

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶27

2-Arvind/-

Mamraj Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamraj Jat 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

Premshankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Miss Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaideep Vs State of Rajasthan

Guneshram Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs State

Rameshwar Lal Regar Vs State of Rajasthan