Allowed

Iqbal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Sept 2022CRLMB/2582/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to an arrested petitioner accused of narcotic offenses under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court noted the indictment relied heavily on uncorroborated statements of co-accused in custody and the absence of call detail records to connect the petitioner to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 via two sureties pending trial.

Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2582/2022 Iqbal S/o Farukh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhamniya Police Station Jayad, District Neemuch, MP. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail, Jaitaran, District Pali)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramniwas Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P.P.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Order

¶9

27/09/2022

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶11

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.228/2017 of Police Station Raipur, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police have recovered 9 kgs. of opium from two co-accused persons viz. Shakir and Kareem Lala on 10.09.2017 when they were transporting the same in two bags in the jurisdiction of the Police Station Raipur, District Pali. It is also submitted that as per the charge-sheet, when the police apprehended the above named two co-accused persons, the mobile phone of co-accused Shakir was constantly ringing and somebody was calling him from mobile No.8949639245. It is further submitted that during the course of interrogation,

¶13

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2582/2022]

¶14

co-accused Shakir informed the police that the petitioner is his cousin and he instructed him to deliver the said narcotic contraband to some person in Jadan District Pali.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the police have concluded that it was the petitioner, who was calling co-accused Shakir and supplied the narcotic contraband to the said co-accused person. It is further submitted that no other evidence have been collected by the police except the statements of co-accused persons while in police custody and it is well settled that the said piece of evidence is not admissible in law.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the statements of Investigating Officer viz. Sawai Singh have also been recorded before the trial court as PW-10, wherein he has failed to disclose that except the statements of co-accused person while in police custody, what evidence is collected by the police to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 2018 and trial against him has not been completed till date, therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the person, who was calling regularly to co-accused Shakir, was the petitioner and it was the petitioner who supplied the narcotic contraband to co-accused persons. It is also submitted that since huge quantity of opium i.e. 9 kgs. were recovered at the instance of co-accused persons, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

It is noticed that as per the charge-sheet, the narcotic contraband was supplied to co-accused persons by the petitioner

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-2582/2022]

¶21

and the police have relied upon the information supplied by the co-accused person while in police custody. It is also to be noticed that the Investigating Officer viz. Sawai Singh (PW-10), in his court statements, has specifically admitted that the mobile No.8949639245 was not in the name of petitioner and the same was in the name of one Amzad, who happened to be cousin of the petitioner, however, at the same time, the police have not interrogated said Amzad and he has also not been shown as prosecution witness in the charge-sheet. It is also noticed that no call details to prove the connection between the petitioner and the co-accused persons have been placed before the trial court.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Accordingly, this second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Iqbal S/o Farukh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.228/2017 of Police Station Raipur, District Pali provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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.

¶24

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶25

Abhishek Kumar S.No.57

Iqbal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal 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

Fateh Singh Vs Hasti Mal

Kamal Bhati Vs Chandra Shekhar Gupta

Fateh Singh Vs Hasti Mal

Zakir Hussain Vs Mohan Lal and Anr.

Chunni Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan