Dismissed

Vishnaram Son of Late Shri Muknaram v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Rajasthan HC19 May 2023CRLMB/265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the third bail application of an accused held in judicial custody for over four years in a commercial quantity narcotics case. Although the trial was delayed beyond the earlier directed timeline, the court held that the heavy quantity of contraband attracted Section 37 embargoes, making it unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The present third bail application is dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial.

Vishnaram Son of Late Shri Muknaram Vs Narcotics Control… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/011523]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 265/2023

¶4

Vishnaram Son Of Late Shri Muknaram, Resident Of Sangasani Post Khejadli, Thana Luni, Jodhpur(Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Narcotics Control Bureau, Through Special P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Utkarsh Shara with Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Mr. Moin Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash, Special Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/05/2023

¶13

The present third application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.14/2018, registered at Police Station NCB, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/18 & 8/25 of Narcotics Drugs & Pshychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’).

¶14

This third bail application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the investigation is complete and the challan has been filed.

¶15

While rejecting the second bail application of the petitioner this Court on 27.08.2022 directed the trial Court to make sincere endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and if needed, summon the prosecution witnesses at once for their

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/011523]

[CRLMB-265/2023]

appearance on different dates and the trial would be preferably concluded within four months.

¶20

Thereafter, the present third application for bail was filed by the petitioner and vide order dated 13.01.2023 the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that no needful was done to summon the other witnesses as directed by this Court on 27.08.2020. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench of this Court summoned the explanation from the trial Court in this regard.

¶21

In compliance of the order dated 13.01.2023, the learned trial Court has sent its explanation on 23.01.2023. 6. This Court has found explanation to be satisfactory vide order dated 24.02.2023. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in judicial custody since September, 2018 i.e. about more than four years and the trial is likely to take a long time to conclude.

¶22

It is submitted that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments has preferred to enlarged the accused on bail in cases where though commercial quantity of alleged contraband was recovered but considering the premise that the petitioner had already suffered a long period of incarceration awaiting trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court chose to grant bail.

¶23

In support of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has places reliance on the following judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court :

¶24

(i) Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of U.P. : Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023.

[2023/RJJP/011523]

[CRLMB-265/2023]

(3 of 4)

(ii) Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan : SB Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.13008/2022 along with SB Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.17720/2022, decided on 13.04.2023.

¶29

(iii) Sitaram Vs. State of Rajasthan : SB Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.6065/2022, decided on 29.09.2022.

¶30

(iv) Suraj Vs. State of Rajsthan : SB Criminal Misc Second Bail Application No.12906/2022, decided on 27.08.2022.

¶31

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the alleged recovered contraband weighed way above the commercial quantity. The total weight of the alleged recovered contraband is 10.210 kg which is above the commercial quantity demarcated for ‘afeem’ and thus, the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable in the present case.

¶32

Learned Special Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Jairam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12491/2022, decided on 19.04.2023.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

The Coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the second bail application of the accused-petitioner as withdrawn vide order dated 27.08.2022. The Coordinate Bench rather was of the view that the trial Court should conclude the trial within a period of four months from 27.08.2022.

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/011523]

[CRLMB-265/2023]

While hearing this third bail application an explanation was sought from the trial Court as to why the trial was not concluded within the period given by this Court.

¶39

However, after perusal of the explanation given by the trial Court, this Court found the explanation to be satisfactory and directed the Special Public Prosecutor of NCB to keep the prosecution witness present in the trial Court so that the trial may be concluded at the earliest. Therefore, though the accused is behind the bars for more than four years, but looking to the quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the petitioner, which is about four times of the commercial quantity, this Court do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as this Court had already given direction for early disposal of the case to the trial Court.

¶40

In the facts of the present case, the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner are of no help to him.

¶41

In view of the discussions aforesaid, the present third bail application is dismissed.

¶42

However, looking to the prolong custody of the petitioner, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite trial as soon as possible.

¶43

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶44

A.Arora/-79

Vishnaram Son of Late Shri Muknaram v. Narcotics Control Bureau

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnaram Son of Late Shri Muknaram v. Narcotics Control Bureau

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

Shivlal @ Shiva Bhadak S/O Dudha Bhadak Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar S/O Shri Niwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahbaz Khan S/O Irfan Ali, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramchandra S/O Shri Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaisingh S/O Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Saurabh Son of Shri Indra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan