Allowed

Babu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CRLMB/308/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under the NDPS Act and Arms Act, the single-judge bench allowed bail citing insufficient evidence and conjectural nature of the case, deeming the Section 37 NDPS Act embargo inapplicable and directing the petitioner to furnish a bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioner directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32438]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 308/2023

¶4

Babu Ram S/o Sh. Tulchha Ram Jat (Jajada), Aged About 28 Years, Jajaro Ki Dhani, Kasti, P.s. Kherapa Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Niwas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

03/10/2023

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	12/2021
2.	Concerned Police Station	Badnor
3.	District	Bhilwara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
5.	Offences added, if any	8/29 of NDPS Act and under Sections 146/196, 3/181 of M.V. Act.
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	16.12.2022

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:32438]

[CRLMB-308/2023]

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶19

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶20

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. A perusal of the charge sheet is revealing that the petitioner was not present at the spot from where the recovery of the contraband was effected. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons, who were apprehended from the spot, made disclosure during investigation to the police officer while in police custody that the contraband was to be given to the present petitioner. Except the confessional statement made by the principal accused to the police officer, there is no other evidence on record so as to show any direct nexus between the petitioner and the alleged recovery. Thus, in absence of the legally admissible evidence, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not be applied in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:32438]

[CRLMB-308/2023]

bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶27

13-divya/-

Babu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Sharma Vs C.P. Gupta

Union of India Vs Jamdad Khan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State

Sahabhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Amraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Vs State of Rajasthan