Allowed

Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Apr 2022CRLMB/2116/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed second bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two accused lodged in judicial custody for offences under NDPS Act. Granting bail without expressing opinion on merits, citing delay in trial and lack of CDL report.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on Rs.2,00,000/- personal bond with two Rs.1,00,000/- sureties subject to non-arrest in other cases.

Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 860/2022

¶3

Vinod @ Manoj @ Sonu S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 36-H Naggi, Sri Karanpur Police Station, District Sri Ganganagar. (Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 2116/2022

¶10

Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nathor, Thana Raniya, Dist. Sirsa (Haryana) Presently Dhani Khet Khud Chak 30 LLW Rohi, Pakka Bhadwa, Thana Sadar Hanumangarh, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi Mr. M.L. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki,PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶17

Order

¶18

18/04/2022

¶19

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.6/2020, Police Station Chittorgarh Kotwali, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-860/2022]

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that at the time of rejection of first bail applications (Nos.12216/2020 & 7543/2020) by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2021, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statements of Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer; chargesheet has been filed; charges have been framed against the petitioners; petitioners were not named during the interrogation of co-accused Kamlesh who has already been granted benefit of bail; petitioner Vinod @ Manoj @ Sonu is behind the bars since 21.09.2021 and petitioner Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhady is behind the bars since 16.06.2020; charge-sheet has been filed; statement of Seizure Officer has been recorded as PW.1 and he has stated that nothing has been recovered from the petitioners; there is no evidence against the petitioners in the statements; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioners and stated that as per page 7 of the charge-sheet there is call detail report of the accusedpetitioners and their mobile numbers have also been mentioned in the charge-sheet.

¶25

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there is no call detail report of the accused-petitioners with the coaccused Kamlesh.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMB-860/2022]

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that there is no call detail report of the accused-petitioners along with the co-accused Kamlesh who has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2022; charge-sheet has been filed; remaining trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶29

Consequently, the second bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners - Vinod @ Manoj @ Sonu S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Jat, (Bail Application No.860/2022), Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Jat, (Bail Application No.2116/2022) both arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.6/2020, Police Station Chittorgarh Kotwali, District Chittorgarh, 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/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

¶30

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶31

30-31-Rashi/-

Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakil Choudhary @ Vakil Bhadu v. State

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

Bhuralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sawai Vs State

Ramrakh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod @ Manoj @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitanaram Vs State of Rajasthan