Dismissed

Hari Ram v. Union of India through Ncb

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2022CRLMB/3611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a bail application by a petitioner accused of narcotic smuggling. The petitioner argued lack of recovery evidence and delay in trial, requesting parity with a co-accused already on bail. The Special PP countered with evidence of presence in the vehicle and a confessional statement. The court was not inclined to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Relief of bail granted to the petitioner is denied and the bail application is dismissed.

Hari Ram Vs Union of India through Ncb — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 3611/2022

¶3

Hari Ram S/o Sh. Oghar Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Sanjay-A Colony, Gali No. 03, Pratapnagar, P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Through Ncb, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khilery For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.R. Pareek, Spl. PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

28/09/2022

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that as a matter of fact, no recovery is effected at the instance of the petitioner and the police has failed to prove any connection between the petitioner and co-accused Mukna Ram, from whom, huge quantity of opium weighing 8.230 kgs have been recovered.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of Seizure Officer namely Pritam Singh (PW/1) has argued that the Seizure Officer, in his statement, has concluded that the petitioner is being impleaded as accused in this case on the basis of his statement and not on the basis of recovery. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2019 and till date, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and, therefore, there is every likelihood that the completion of trial

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-3611/2022]

¶16

against the petitioner will take time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that co-accused namely Paburam has already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Per contra, Mr. MR Pareek, Special PP appearing for NCB has opposed the bail application and argued that on a secret information received by the NCB, a raid was conducted and the Seizure Officer as well as the officials of the NCB have found the petitioner with four other co-accused persons in a vehicle, from which, huge quantity of opium around eight kilograms have been recovered. It is further submitted that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the other co-accused persons. It is also argued that the petitioner has admitted in his confessional statement that he is indulged in smuggling of narcotic contraband since long and was in contact with co-accused Paburam for the purpose of purchasing the opium.

¶18

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has also argued that the Seizure Officer, in his court statement, has verified the factum of presence of petitioner with the other co-accused persons and recovery of huge quantity of opium. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner was aware about the existence of opium in the vehicle, in which he was sitting with the other coaccused persons. It is further submitted that the Seizure Officer, though in his statement, has submitted that the petitioner is being impleaded as accused in this case on the basis of his statement only, however, the said statement of the Seizure Officer is of no significance because it is for the Investigating Officer to file

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-3611/2022]

¶21

charge-sheet against accused persons on the basis of evidence collected during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot seek parity from co-accused Paburam as while granting bail to him, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the order shall not be cited as a precedent for claiming parity in other matters or by the other accused in this case.

¶22

Learned Special Public Prosecutor, thus, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, I am not inclined to enlarged the petitioner on bail.

¶24

Hence, this second bail application is dismissed.

¶25

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶26

101-mohit/-

Hari Ram v. Union of India through Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram v. Union of India through Ncb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Zakir Hussain Vs Mohan Lal and Anr.

Chunni Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Avtar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Avtar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Tiwadi Vs State