Allowed

Mithun v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2021CRLMB/6625/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a prisoner charged under the NDPS Act. Granting bail was based on the fact that the petitioner was only later named as an accused through Section 27 evidence from a co-accused, with no other material evidence or recovery of contraband against him.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail, furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each including one local surety, to the trial court.

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

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMB-6625/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6625/2021

¶5

Mithun S/o Shri Karu Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Kotda, Village Gudarkheda, Police Station Piploda, District Ratlam, Madhyapradesh.

¶6

(At Present Lodged Central Jail Jodhpur).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶13

Order

¶14

21/10/2021

¶15

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.38/2021, Police Station Balesar, District Jodhpur, registered for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

¶16

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

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that charge-sheet was filed against Jagdish, Prakash, Dilip and Mithun-present petitioner and investigation was kept pending against Suresh, Jeevan Ram, Lichhu and Rahim @ Raju. It is further submitted that contraband was recovered from truck driver-Jagdish as well as from Prakash-helper and no contraband was recovered from the present accused-petitioner. It is further submitted that

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMB-6625/2021]

¶20

accused-petitioner was not named initially in information given by co-accused as well as statement of Investigating Officer and he was implicated subsequently on the basis of information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by co-accused Jagdish on 17.02.2021. It is further submitted that mobile numbers of other co-accused were mentioned in the charge-sheet but no mobile number of accused-petitioner was mentioned in the charge-sheet. Lastly, it is submitted that except the information given by coaccused Jagdish, there is no other evidence against the accusedpetitioner; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 20.02.2021; further trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶21

On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that in regard to accused-petitioner, information has been given by co-accused, Jagdish, Prakash and Dilip Kumar. He further stated that information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been given by accused-petitioner Mithun is also available at page no.29 of the charge-sheet.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that accused-petitioner was subsequently named on the basis of information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by co-accused and initially accused-petitioner was not named; no mobile number was mentioned in the charge-sheet and except the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no other evidence against the accused-petitioner, 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.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-6625/2021]

¶25

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Mithun S/o Shri Karu Lal, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.38/2021, Police Station Balesar, District Jodhpur, 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 sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each, including one local surety, 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

6-Bharti/-

Mithun v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithun 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