Allowed

Bhup Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Mar 2023CRLMB/16475/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three bail applications were filed by impugned accused charged under the NDPS Act. The High Court allowed bail, noting that the charges were based solely on the statements of other accused persons without any recovery of contraband, making it just and proper to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of all three petitioners on bail in connection with FIR No.219/2021 upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/007537]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15902/2022

¶4

Balu Lal S/o Devi Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhanora Tehsil And Ps Begu Dist. Chittorgarh (At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14237/2022 Vainkat Kumar @ Kishori S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dhanora, Begu Police Station, District Chittrogarh. (Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16475/2022 Bhup Singh S/o Mairam Nai, Aged About 33 Years, Shivpura Bas, Near Hissar Bus Stand, Kachhi Basti, W.no. 29, Behind Jai Hind School, Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	R.K.	Charan
	Mr.	Mrid	ul Jain
	Mr.	B.R.	Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S.S.	Rajpurohit,PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

27/03/2023

[2023/RJJD/007537]

[CRLMB-15902/2022]

(2 of 3)

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.219/2021 Police Station Kotwali, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners Balu Lal, Vainkat Kumar @ Kishori and Bhup Singh have preferred these bail applications against the order passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases No.1, Chittorgarh, wherein, their bail applications were dismissed vide orders dated 17.11.2022, 20.04.2022 and 19.12.2022 respectively. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no iota of evidence regarding their connectivity and they have been indulged in the offence based upon the statement of accused recorded during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that there is no other evidence indicating the connivance of the accused in the said recovery of contraband articles. The accused are in judicial custody since their arrest and trial of case will take considerable long time to conclude, therefore, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and concedes that apart from the statements of the accused persons, there is no other evidence linking the accused persons in the said crime. He also submits that there is a whatsapp call connecting the accused Bhup Singh and main accused Sagar. He further states that there is no evidence regarding the collection of

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/007537]

[CRLMB-15902/2022]

electronic evidence as per the requirement of 65-B of the Evidence Act.

¶34

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶35

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that the accused persons have been indulged on the basis of statement of the other accused persons and no recovery have been made against all three accused-persons, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners - (1) Balu Lal S/o Devi Lal Sharma, (2) Vainkat Kumar @ Kishori S/o

¶37

Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma, (3) Bhup Singh S/o Mairam

¶38

Nai , shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No.219/2021 Police Station Kotwali, District Chittorgarh provided they furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶39

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶40

80-82-Suraj/-

Bhup Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhup Singh 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

Rajendra Kumar Meena S/O Shri Bhouri Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Nitin Shrivastav Son of Shri Chandramohan Shrivastav Vs State of Rajasthan

Daluram Son of Bholashankar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikrant Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan