High Court allowed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition granting interim bail on terms pending filing of bail bond within limits. Court held accused has indefeasible right to bail under CrPC s.167(2) despite subsequent filing of charge sheet and clarified possession quantities.
Interim bail granted to Rajveer Singh pending regular bail application with specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 903/2021
Rajveer Singh S/o Shri Labh Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chak 2 Pgm, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Bhadra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
D.S. Thind,on V.C. |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Gaurav Singh,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
Pronounced on 01/02/2022
01;g nkafMd iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr jktohj flag us fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk ds }kjk fofo/k nkafMd izdj.k la[;k 236@2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 30-09-2021 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk vfHk;qDr dk /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dk izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
02eSaus ;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr o ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dh cgl lquh ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
03;ksX; vf/koDrk iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr us ;g rdZ fn;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Qk#[k dh ryk'kh esa mlds iktkes dh nkfgus tsc ls Bksl ikmMjuqek IykfLVd dh FkSyh jfgr 160 xzke dk inkFkZ] fojsUnz flag dh ryk'kh esa mlds ik;tkesa dh nkfguh tsc ls IykfLVd dh FkSyh jfgr 200 xzke] nhid dh ryk'kh esa mldh isaV dh tsc ls FkSyh jfgr 200 xzke] jktohj ds yksoj@iktkes dh tsc ls FkSyh jfgr 200 xzke inkFkZ dh cjkenxh gqbZA iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ls okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de dh cjkenxh gqbZ gSA iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dks fnukad
(2 of 7)
[CRLR-903/2021]
19-07-2021 dks fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k FkkA vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 30-09-2021 rd vkjksi&i= izLrqr ugha fd;kA tcfd 60 fnol dh vof/k esa vkjksi&i= is'k gksuk pkfg,A fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k us vfHk;qDrx.k ls la;qDr :i ls 760 xzke dh gsjksbu dh okf.kfT;d ek=k dh cjkenxh ekudj vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS] tks mfpr ,oa fof/klEer ugha gSA iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ls FkSyh jfgr 200 xzke dh gh cjkenxh ekuh tkuh pkfg,] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr dj iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu tekur dk ykHk fn, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2312/2012, Roteen Barman Versus State of Rajasthan esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 09-10-2012 dh izfr izLrqr dhA
04tcfd ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us mDr rdksZa dk fojks/k djrs gq, vk{ksfir vkns'k dk leFkZu fd;k vkSj iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
05eSaus mi;qZDr ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr Qk#[k ds iktkes dh nkfguh tsc ls 160 xzke Bksl ikmMjuqek inkFkZ] vfHk;qDr fojsUnz flag dh iktkes dh nkfgus tsc ls 200 xzke Bksl ikmMjuqek inkFkZ] vfHk;qDr nhid dh isaV dh nkfgus tsc ls 200 xzke Bksl ikmMjuqek inkFkZ ,oa vfHk;qDr jktohj flag ds iktkes dh nkfgus tsc ls 200 xzke Bksl ikmMjuqek inkFkZ FkSyh jfgr cjken gqvkA bl izdkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr jktohj flag ds iktkes ¼yksoj½ dh nkfguh tsc ls dqy 200 xzke gsjksbu cjken gqbZA gsjksbu dh 250 xzke dh ek=k okf.kfT;d ek=k dh Js.kh esa vkrh gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ls 200 xzke gsjksbu cjken gqbZ gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de dh gSA
06vk{ksfir vkns'k esa fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k us vfHk;qDrx.k ls gsjksbu dh 760 xzke okf.kfT;d ek=k ij la;qDr dCtk gksuk vafdr fd;k gS ysfdu izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k dh
(3 of 7)
[CRLR-903/2021]
yksvj@iktkes@isaV dh tsc ls iFkd&iFkd ek=k esa fofu"k) inkFkZ dh cjkenxh gqbZ gSA iFkd&iFkd :i ls cjken fofu"k) inkFkZ dh cjkenxh vfHk;qDrx.k ls la;qDr cjkenxh ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA bl laca/k esa mi;qZDr mnr uthj Roteen Barman Versus State of Rajasthan ds i"B la[;k 04 vkSj 05 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %&
"Contention of learned Public Prosecutor that in the first information report, in question, the weighment of the total contraband (Ganja) recovered is 34.160 kg, which is more than the commercial quantity, there fore, the offence should be treated as the one attracting the sentence awardable for possession of commercial quantity cannot be accepted for the simple reason that it is not even the case of prosecution in the FIR that the contraband was jointly recovered from all four accused from a single container. The case which they have set up in the first information report is that the Ganja in the quantity of 8.720 kg was recovered at the instance of accused petitioner, 8.560 kg from Dhirendra Barman, 8.460 kg. from Viresh Sarkar and 8.420 kg. from Anil Verma, individually from separate bags carried by each one of them. The argument cannot therefore be accepted on the anology that since they are accused in one single FIR, therefore, the contraband recovered from each one of them should be clubbed together to find out if it exceeds the commercial quantity"
07mDr fu.kZ; ds i`"B la[;k 06 vkSj 07 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS
fd %&
"A Coordinate bench of this Court in Akhlak @ Vilsan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan-2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 553 was dealing with a case where recovery of 65 grams charas was made from the possession of accused-petitioner Akhlak and 60 gms 2.40 mg was made from the possession of accusedpetitioner Monu. It was held that sub-clause (b) of Section 20 would be attracted. The recovery of charas shown from the possession of both accused persons was found to be
(4 of 7) [CRLR-903/2021]
less than 100 gms and therefore it was held to be a small quantity. It was held than since the quantity of contraband in possession of each accused was less than the commercial quantity, the Magistrate is not competent to try the case. In Ram Karan @ Ram Varan, supra it was held that period of 90 days as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted only in those cases where imprisonment is of 10 years or more. In Smt. Anita Devi, supra, the coordinate bench of this Court has granted bail to the accused-petitioner on the ground that quantity of contraband recovered individually from the petitioner was less than the commercial quantity and upper limit for filing challan is 60 days as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. A coordinate bench of this Court in Nasir, Supra also granted bail to the accused from whose possession recovery of 1.5 kg Opium has been made and charge sheet was not filed. It was held that period of filing charge sheet is 60 days and therefore petitioner is entitled to bail."
08mDr uthj ds i`"B la[;k 09 o 10 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %&
"It is therefore clear that for offences where the quantity of contraband recovered is lesser than the commercial quantity, for which the sentence is upto 10 years with fine extending to Rs. 1,00,000 the period for filing charge sheet is 60 days as per Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. Where, however, the recovered contraband involves commercial quantity and the accused is punishable with regorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years and fine which may extend to Rs. 2,00,000, the period for filing charge sheet as per Section 36(D)(iv) of NDPS Act would be 180 days."
09bl izdkj mi;qZDr uthj esa O;Dr er ds vuqlkj iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ls 200 xzke gsjksbu dh cjkenxh ekuuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k us vk{ksfir vkns'k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ls la;qDr :i ls 760 xzke gsjksbu dh cjkenxh gksuk vafdr fd;k gS tks mi;qZDr foospu ds ifjizs{; esa mfpr ,oa fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gSA
(5 of 7)
[CRLR-903/2021]
10izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ls 'kq) :i ls 200 xzke gsjksbu dh cjkenxh gqbZ gS tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de dh izdV gksrh gSA okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de dh fofu"k) inkFkZ dh cjkenxh ds ekeys esa vkjksi i= izLrqr djus dh vof/k 60 fnu dh nf"Vxr gksrh gSA vk{ksfir vkns'k ds iSjk la[;k 03 ds vuqlkj iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dks fnukad 19-07-2021 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k Fkk ,oa vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 30-09-2021 rd vkjksi i= izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj 60 fnol dh vof/k esa iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi i= is'k ugha fd;k x;kA iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr us /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dk izkFkZuk&i= 60 fnol dh vof/k lekIr gksus ds i'pkr~ is'k fd;k vkSj vk{ksfir vkns'k ds fnu vfHk;qDr dks fxj¶rkj gq, 73 fnu gks pqds Fks ysfdu rc rd Hkh vkjksi i= izLrqr gksuk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA vkjksi i= dh la[;k 178@17-10-2021 gS blfy, vkjksi i= fnukad 17-10-2021 ds i'pkr~ gh is'k fd;k x;k gSA
11iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr us vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls iwoZ gh /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr dj fn;k FkkA vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds i'pkr~ vkjksi&i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
12;|fi vk{ksfir vkns'k ikfjr gksus ds i'pkr~ vkjksi&i= izLrqr gks x;k ysfdu vfHk;qDr us vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls iwoZ gh gLrxr izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj fn;k vkSj vius /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx dj fy;k FkkA fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k us vk{ksfir vkns'k ds }kjk Hkwyo'k vfHk;qDr dk /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dk izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k gSA rFkkfi vc vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu izkIr vf/kdkj lekIr ugha gksrk gSA bl laca/k esa AIR 2001 SC 1910 Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %&
"Where charge sheet is not filed within a period of 60 or 90 days and the accused moves application for being released on bail u/s 167(2), Proviso (a) of the CrPC and offers to furnish bail, he can be said to have availed of indefeasible right for being released on bail. If the application of the accused moved u/s 167(2) CrPC is erroneously rejected by
(6 of 7)
[CRLR-903/2021]
the Magistrate and the accused then approaches higher forum for bail and the charge sheet is filed in the meantime, it does not extinguish the accrued right of the accused to be released on bail u/s 167(2) CrPC."
13pwafd gLrxr izdj.k esa iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr us /kkjk 167¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk ds v/khu izkIr vf/kdkj dk iz;ksx vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls iwoZ gh dj fy;k FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa mi;qZDr mn`r uthj Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vuqlkj i'pkr~orhZ izØe ij vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls vfHk;qDr dks izkIr fof/kd vf/kdkj lekIr ugha gksrk gSA 14/kkjk 167 naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh lHkh 'krsZa ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds varxZr vkus okys ekeyksa ij Hkh ykxw gksrh gSA bl laca/k esa AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1403 Manoj Versus State of Madhya Pradesh dh uthj ds iSjk la[;k 07 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd %&
7. It is now well-neigh settled that benefit of the proviso to Section 167 (2) of the Code would endue to an accused involved in the offences under NDPS Act as well, (vide Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190 : (1995 AIR SCW 2543). Paragraph 14 of the said decision reads thus :
"In our opinion, in order to exclude the application of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section indicating the contrary intention was required or at least some provision from which such a conclusion emerged by necessary implication. As shown by us, there is no such provision in the NDPS Act and the scheme of the Act indicates that the total period of custody of the accused permissible during investigation is to be found in Section 167 Cr. P.C. which is expressly applied. The absence of any provision inconsistent there-with in this Act is significant."
15dqy feykdj mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k mfpr ,oa fof/klEer izrhr ugha gksrk gS] blfy, vk{ksfir vkns'k vikLr fd, tkus ds ;ksX; gSA
(7 of 7) [CRLR-903/2021]
16ifj.kker% iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkknjk ds }kjk fofo/k nkafMd izdj.k la[;k 236@2021 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 30-09-2021 iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr jktohj flag dh lhek rd vikLr fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn ml U;k;ky;@fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fu;r izR;sd rkjh[k is'kh ij mifLFkr gksus o U;k;ky; }kjk ryc djus ij mifLFkr gksus ds fy, ,d yk[k :i;s dh jkf'k dk Lo;a dk ca/ki= ,oa ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s dh nks lqn`<+ tekursa izLrqr dj rLnhd djk nsa rks iqujh{k.kdrkZ&vfHk;qDr dh fdlh vU; izdj.k esa vko';drk ugha gksus ij bl izdj.k esa tekur ij rqjar fueqZDr dj fn;k tk,A
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
22-Rajendra/-
;g vkns'[email protected]; vkt fnuakd 01-02-2022 dks Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348(i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dk s izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the benefit of proviso to section 167(2) of CrPC ends if the charge sheet is filed after the limitation period but the accused moved for bail beforehand.
Whether joint possession can be attributed to all accused for determining if contraband exceeds commercial quantity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Roteen Barman Versus State of RajasthanExplained¶17
Roteen Barman Versus State of Rajasthan
Akhlak vs State of RajasthanReferred¶27
Akhlak @ Vilsan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan-2010 WLC (Raj.) UC 553
Ram Karan vs UnknownReferred¶29
Ram Karan @ Ram Varan
Smt Anita DeviReferred¶29
Smt. Anita Devi
Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of MaharashtraApplied¶37
AIR 2001 SC 1910 Uday Mohanlal Acharya Vs. State of Maharashtra · Who else cites this
Manoj Versus State of Madhya PradeshApplied¶43
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1403 Manoj Versus State of Madhya Pradesh · Who else cites this
Union of India v. ThamisharasiApplied¶43
Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190 · Who else cites this
Rajveer Singh
State
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
