The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected a second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of offences under the NDPS Act. The court held that sufficient evidence existed and, in light of the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail was not warranted.
Petitioner's bail application was dismissed.
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.
[2023/RJJD/014271]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1107/2022
Pappu Lal S/o Gopi Lal Dhakar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Govindpura, Begu, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Bhagirath RayBishnoi. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
09/05/2023
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.38/2021 registered at Police Station Begun, District Chittorgarh, for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2021.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
As per the prosecution, contraband (opium) weighing 21 Kg was recovered from two cars bearing Nos.RJ-06-CB-1647 and RJ06-CA-3590, parked in the Bara (plot) of the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bara (plot) from which the contraband has been recovered is not in the exclusive possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel
[2023/RJJD/014271]
[CRLMB-1107/2022]
(2 of 3)
submitted that Seizure officer has not collected any documents to establish that the Bara (plot) belongs to the present petitioner only. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the revenue record of the aforesaid Bara (plot) shows that same is in the joint ownership of the present petitioner and his other family members viz. father and brother. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence available with prosecution which could establish the fact that Bara (plot) belongs to ownership and possession of the present petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
Drawing attention of the Court towards various documents annexed with the challan papers by the Investigating Agency, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was specific information available with the Seizure Officer that contraband (opium) has been procured and hidden by the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner in his statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act informed that the contraband was procured by him from one Kanhaiyalal Bishnoi. Learned counsel submitted that various cases under NDPS Act are pending against Kanhaiyalal Bishnoi. Learned counsel lastly submitted that WhatsApp calls / chats between the present petitioner and Kanhaiyalal are sufficient to indicate involvement of the present petitioner in the present case.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, in the prima facie opinion of this Court sufficient direct and corroboratory evidence is available on record
(3 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/014271]
[CRLMB-1107/2022]
to show involvement of present petitioner in commission of alleged offence.
In the considered opinion of this Court, in the face of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the present Second Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
7-Prashant/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a trial involving serious economic offences under Section 37 of the NDPS Act when sufficient direct and corroboratory evidence exists.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Pappu Lal
State of Rajasthan
KULDEEP MATHUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
