Allowed

Meh Ram Mehra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 May 2023CRLMB/260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed three interconnected bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for arrestees accused of NDPS violations. The court held that mixing contraband samples violated NCB Standing Instructions and a prior High Court precedent, thus preventing a finding of commercial quantity. Consequently, bail was granted with bonds.

What did the court decide?

Each accused shall be enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.

Meh Ram Mehra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/016864]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3912/2023

¶4

Narpat Singh S/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 39 Years, B/c Rajput R/o Vill. Khirja Aasha PS Shergarh Dist. Jodhpur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 260/2023 Meh Ram Mehra Ram S/o Sh. Shwa Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Dheera, P.s. Siwana, Dist. Barmer.

¶11

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3914/2023 Durag Singh @ Raju Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vill. Khinyasriya Ps Dechu Dist. Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr.Praveen Dayal Dave,
		Mr.Bhagat Dadhich,
		Mr.Divakar Sharma.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr.Shrawan Kumar, P.P. with
		Mr.Kamla Goswami.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶23

ORDER

¶24

23/05/2023

¶25

These three applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.174/2021 registered at Police Station

[2023/RJJD/016864]

[CRLMB-3912/2023]

(2 of 4)

Basni, District Jodhpur City (West), for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, on 28.11.2022, the police conducted a raid at the godown of petitioner Durag Singh and recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 1672 kgs from 84 sacks/bags. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of seizure officer Pana Choudhary (P.W.1) recorded before competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that a 100 gms sample collected from 84 sacks/bags was mixed in one bag/packet. Learned counsel submitted that in view of aforesaid admission of seizure officer, it is apparent that samples collected from each sack/bag were not kept separately.

¶31

Learned counsel further submitted that coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014 (1) Cr.LR. (Raj.) 163 has held that if samples from each bag containing contraband have not been collected seperately and if the seizure officer has taken out some quantity of narcotic drug from each bag and after mixing the same has taken out some portion of sample, then, the same is not in conformity with the Standing Instructions No.1/88 issued by the Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi particularly Instruction No.1.7 and, as such, it cannot be said that the narcotic contraband recovered in the matter is of commercial quantity and above. It is thus, prayed that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the aforesaid

[2023/RJJD/016864]

[CRLMB-3912/2023]

(3 of 4)

argument with regard to mixing of contraband recovered from 84 different sacks/bags recovered from the godown of the petitioner Durag Singh.

¶37

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case so also the statement and crossexamination of seizure officer (P.W.1), this Court prima-facie finds that the seizure officer has not followed the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by the NCB New Delhi and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Netram ( supra ).

¶38

In view of aforesaid discussion, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶39

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.

¶40

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Narpat Singh S/o Khangar Singh, (ii) Meh Ram Mehra Ram S/o Sh. Shwa Ram and (iii) Durag Singh @ Raju Singh S/o Hari Singh respectively hall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.174/2021 registered at Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur City (West), 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.

[2023/RJJD/016864]

[CRLMB-3912/2023]

(4 of 4)

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶45

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶46

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.338 to 340

Meh Ram Mehra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meh Ram Mehra Ram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kasam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakh Ji Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Badiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan @ Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan