Allowed

Rajesh Kumar S/O Daulatram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2021CRLMB/8308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under the NDPS Act, the court allowed the bail despite NCB opposition. The court held the application allowed upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-.

Rajesh Kumar S/O Daulatram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

¶3

8308/2020

¶4

Rajesh Kumar S/o Daulatram, R/o Jatti Ki Bagachi Alwar Dist. Alwar (Presently Confined At Dist. Jail Dholpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

For NCB

: Mr. Kapil Gupta through VC : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma through VC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

08/01/2021

¶15

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Case No.VII (IO)13/NCB/JZU/2020 was registered at Police Station NCB, District Jodhpur for offence under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that an information was received by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) that a truck carrying contraband would be coming to Badi, District Dholpur and one Bhanwar Singh would be coming in a Swift Dzire to take the contraband from Rambeer Singh, the truck driver. It is also contended that contraband and cash amount were recovered from the truck. Petitioner was hired for only driving the car, and he did not know that he had been hired for carrying the contraband. It is also contended that contraband was not

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLMB-8308/2020]

¶20

recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and in the information received also, petitioner was not named. Petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents of like nature.

¶21

Learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has opposed the bail application. It is contended that in the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, petitioner has admitted that he had charged more money, which goes to show that he was aware that contraband was being transported in his vehicle.

¶22

In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has contended that statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be read against the petitioner, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court.

¶23

I have considered the contentions.

¶24

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶25

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶27

ARTI SHARMA /3

Rajesh Kumar S/O Daulatram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar S/O Daulatram 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

Ramesh Chand S/O Kanhaiya Lal B/C Yogi (Nath) Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu S/O Ramkalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lal Singh @ Lalaram S/O Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shipradas@Payal@Shipra Sharma Wife of Vishvjeet Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Nagori S/O Shri Gopal Lal Ji Vs State of Rajasthan

Khyaliram S/O Shri Girdharilal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan