Allowed

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2022CRLMB/8216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two accused arrested in an NDPS case. The court held that without cogent evidence connecting the petitioners to the alleged smuggling offense, it was just and proper to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted; accused to be released on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8216/2022

¶3

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan S/o Sh. Munsha Singh, Aged About 49 Years, B/c Raisikh, R/o Fattewala Hithar, Mamdot Police Station, Dist. Firozpur (Punjab). (Lodged In Sub Jail, Sri Karanpur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1927/2022

¶10

Samar Singh @ Samari S/o Shri Surjeet Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Basti Aduwala Panchayat Mastake, P.s. Arifke, District Firozepur (Punjab) (At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Sriganganagar)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.Ray Bishnoi Mr. Amit Gaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶16

Order

¶17

20/10/2022

¶18

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

¶19

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.201/2018 of Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/28 and 30 of NDPS Act and

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-8216/2022]

¶22

Section 188 of IPC. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case without verifying their identity. It is submitted that as per the prosecution story, three accused persons were apprehended by the armed forces while they were allegedly attempting to smuggle some narcotic contraband from Pakistan border. It is further submitted that the said persons, who were detained by the armed forces, have furnished information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the effect that two other persons namely Samar Singh and Pahalwan were there at a nearby place. It is further submitted that the armed forces could not traced out those persons, however, their names are figured in the charge-sheet.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the prosecution has also failed to produce any cogent evidence of this effect that the petitioners are connected with the persons, who were apprehend by the armed forces.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners have invited my attention towards the statements of the Investigating Officers (PWs-3 and 5) and argued that from their evidence, it is clear that except the information supplied by the co-accused persons, who were apprehend by the armed forces near Pakistan Border and later on handed over to the police, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶28

(3 of 3)

¶29

[CRLMB-8216/2022]

¶30

case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶31

Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan S/o Sh. Munsha Singh and Samar Singh @ Samari S/o Shri Surjeet Singh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.201/2018 of Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar provided each of them 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.

¶32

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶33

102 & 103-Arun/-

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh @ Raju @ Pahalwan 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

Mehardin Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan Vs State of Rajasthan

Samar Singh @ Samari Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Birma Ram @ Hema Ram Vs State of Rajasthan