Allowed

Parkash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023CRLMB/12211/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the fourth bail application of the petitioner in a case under Sections 8/15/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The Court granted bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused already on bail, lack of legally admissible evidence at this stage, and anticipated delay in trial conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Parkash Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37890]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 12211/2023

¶4

Parkash S/o Ranglal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Vali Ka Khera, Ps - Badi Sadri, Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. assisted by
	Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A. R. Choudhary, Dy. G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

02/11/2023

¶13

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	136/2019
2.	Concerned Police Station	Fatehnagar
3.	District	Udaipur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
5.	Offences added, if any	Sections 8/25 and 29 of NDPS Act.
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	07.08.2023

¶15

The third bail application of petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2022 as not pressed. Now,

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:37890]

[CRLMB-12211/2023]

almost a year has passed and no significant progress has been made in the trial, hence the fourth bail application has been filed.

¶20

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that it is the case of the prosecution that a certain quantity of contraband came to be recovered from co-accused Labhchand and during investigation, he made a disclosure statement that the present petitioner escorted the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the petitioner was found present at the crime scene nor any incriminating material or contraband was recovered from his possession. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. The principal-accused Labhchand Dhakad has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.06.2020 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4405/2020.

¶21

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶22

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is alleged that the aforementioned principal-accused made a disclosure statement before the police while in custody that the present petitioner provided assistance to them in commission of crime. Perusal of the record further revealing that on the basis of the confessional statement made by the above mentioned accused, the present petitioner has been booked and arrested in this

[2023:RJ-JD:37890]

[CRLMB-12211/2023]

(3 of 3)

matter. There is substance in the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding dearth of legally admissible evidence. Whether the disclosure statement made by the principal accused before the police while in custody would be admissible in evidence or not, is the question open to moot and at this stage of the proceeding, this Court would refrain from passing any comment as the same may influence the judicial proceeding pending before the trial court. The principal accused Labhchand Dhakad has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, on the ground of parity and on the ground that the trial would still take a long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶27

Accordingly, the fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

230-Mamta/-

Parkash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkash 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

Rakesh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shri Ganesh Traders Vs Chief Commissioner, Sgst

B.L. Sharma Vs Union of India

M/S Ravi and Sons Vs State of Rajasthan

Nathu Singh Rajput Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan