Allowed

Ramkumar v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2021CRLMB/6766/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order allowed two bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a narcotics case. The High Court granted bail primarily due to a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act by the seizing officer and unavoidable delay in sending samples, despite the quantity of contraband attracting Section 37.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each appearing in the trial court.

Ramkumar Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6766/2021

¶3

Ramkumar S/o Shri Ladhuram, aged about 28 years, R/o 14 RD, Village Madasar, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer.

¶4

(At present lodged at Sub Jail Pokhran, Jaisalmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10482/2021

¶11

Dinesh S/o Sh. Ladhu Ram, aged 25 years, R/o Madasar, Police

¶12

Station Nokh District Jaisalmer.

¶13

(At present lodged in Sub Jail, Pokran).

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Bishnoi Mr. Kailash Khilery Mr. Naresh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶20

Order

¶21

12/08/2021

¶22

Both the above bail applications shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same FIR.

¶23

The present bail applications have been filed under Section

¶24

439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody

¶25

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6766/2021]

¶26

in connection with F.I.R. No.58/2020, Police Station Nokh, District Jaisalmer, for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that notices given under Section 50 of the NDPS Act available at page No.18-19 of the charge-sheet and in those notices, third option was given by the Seizure Officer which is clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 290 titled as “State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand & Anr.” decided on 28.02.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that samples were sent to F.S.L. after the delay of six days; charge-sheet has been filed and that trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶29

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and stated that both the accused-petitioners were arrested from the spot and recovered quantity of the contraband poppy husk is above commercial quantity, therefore, Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted in this case.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case particularly to the facts that third option was given by the Seizure Officer which is a clear cut violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; it is also pertinent to mention that there is no signature of any accused or any witness on the notices given; this Court is of the view that conditions of Section 37 are satisfied in this case and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this

¶31

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6766/2021]

¶32

Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶33

Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners Nos. (1). Ramkumar S/o Shri Ladhuram and (2). Dinesh S/o Sh. Ladhu Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.58/2020, Police Station Nokh, District Jaisalmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶35

13-14/akshay/-

Ramkumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan

Manchha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manchha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Kumar @ Daparam Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumar Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan