Allowed

Vijesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023CRLMB/1894/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two petitioners sought bail for alleged offences under the NDPS Act involving procurement of contraband. The High Court found conditions under Section 37 NDPS Act satisfied and granted bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each at the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017777]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 732/2023 Dilkush S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Dhakar, R/o Khumanganj, P.s. Bhesroadgarh Dist. Chittorgarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1894/2023 Vijesh S/o Banshi Lal, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Dhakar, R/o Nimoda, Police Station Jawada, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) (At Present Lodged At District Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Sunil Vishnoi, Mr.R.K.Charan.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P. with
	Mr.Rajneesh Kumar, I.O. SHO PS
	Rawatbhata,Chittorgarh.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶16

26/05/2023

¶17

These two applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.33/2022 registered at Police Station Bhesroadgarh, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the present petitioners is that they were

[2023/RJJD/017777]

[CRLMB-732/2023]

(2 of 3)

escorting a pickup van which was carrying contraband greater than the commercial quantity. The SHO PS Bhesgarhroad flagged down the vehicle. However, the occupants of the vehicle on seeing police personnels, fled from the place of incident. The police during investigation recovered two abandoned motorcycles and implicated the present petitioners in the present case for allegedly escorting the pickup.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that there is no direct/corroboratory evidence available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused in their disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act have named the present petitioners and apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, there is no evidence whatsoever which could establish link between the petitioners and co-accused persons.

¶24

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that even as per the call details analysed by the investigating agency, the mobile phone of the petitioner Vijesh was found to be switched off. As far as petitioner Dilkhush is concerned, he was also not arrested on the spot and merely because, he had made certain calls to co-accused Pankaj Dhakad and Manoj Dhakad on the date of the incident, it cannot be concluded that there exists any connection between the petitioners Vijesh, Dilkhush with the co-accused.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/017777]

[CRLMB-732/2023]

sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶30

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, the conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are satisifed and hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶33

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Dilkush S/o Moti Lal and (ii) Vijesh S/o Banshi Lal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.33/2022 registered at Police Station Bhesroadgarh, District Chittorgarh, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶35

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.1-2

Vijesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijesh 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

Kirshanlal @ Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Khodiwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Piyush Vs State of Rajasthan

Kana @ Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sant Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Vs State of Rajasthan