Allowed

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 May 2023CRLMB/185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to the petitioner charged under the NDPS Act. The judgment was based on the Investigating Officer's admission that the location where contraband was recovered was not in the petitioner's exclusive possession, preventing strict proof of ownership.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/013283]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 185/2023

¶4

Mangilal S/o Sahiram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kanasar Ps Baap Dist. Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Vinod Kumar Sharma
	Mr.	DilipKumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

03/05/2023

¶13

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.171/2021 Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband (poppy straw/husk) in 6 bags weighing 100 Kg was recovered from an open area, said to be in possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 02.01.2022. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of Investigating Officer-Rakesh Khyaliya (PW-1) recorded before the competent criminal court on 18.01.2023, learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Officer has admitted that though recovery was made from an open

[2023/RJJD/013283]

[CRLMB-185/2023]

(2 of 3)

area however, there is no document available on record to show that the said open area/field was in the exclusive possession/ownership of the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the said open area/field is not in exclusive ownership of the present petitioner and no document showing exclusive ownership/ khatedari of the petitioner is available on record, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the Patwari, Patwar Mandal, Kanasar had issued a certificate stating that Khasra No.1223/5 Rakba 9.2268 hectare, from where aforesaid contraband was recovered, as per revenue record is in joint khatedari of one Malaram s/o Ganpatram, Babu Lal, Sahi Ram, Prema Ram etc. The present petitioner is son of Sahi Ram and thus, the fact that the place from where contraband was recovered is in ownership of the petitioner and that the contraband belongs to him cannot be disputed. It was thus, prayed that the present petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sahi Ram has two sons namely Sunil and the present petitioner-Mangilal, therefore, in the absence of any demarcation of land, it cannot be said that open area/field from where the contraband was recovered is in exclusive possession/ownership of the present petitioner.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the contraband was recovered from an open area/field and the ownership thereof was not ascertained,

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-185/2023]

¶24

[2023/RJJD/013283]

¶25

which is evident from the statement of Investigating Officer (P.W.1), this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶26

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Mangilal S/o Sahiram , arrested in connection with FIR No.171/2021 Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur, shall be released on bail; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶28

85-KshamaD/-

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal 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

Naresh @ Kallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Sukhwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Hussain Shah @ Hussain Katora Vs State of Rajasthan

Hapu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan Multani Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan