Allowed

Narayan @ Pappu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 May 2023CRLMB/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail to the petitioner accused under the NDPS Act, relying on weak evidentiary links via co-accuser disclosures and lack of registration of the used mobile number in the petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioner granted bail on a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to be deposited with the trial Judge.

Narayan @ Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/016769]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 310/2023

¶4

Narayan @ Pappu S/o Mohanlal Mali, Aged About 34 Years, Hoda, Thana Bhadesar, Dist. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati, P.P. with
	Mr. Gajendra Singh, I.O. S.H.O.
	P.S.Kapasan,District Chittorgarh.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

23/05/2023

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 659 kgs in 37 sacks/bags was recovered from the house of co-accused Asif Mohd. @ Asu. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of co-accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submitted that to establish link with the petitioner, co-

[2023/RJJD/016769]

[CRLMB-310/2023]

(2 of 3)

accused disclosed the mobile number of the petitioner to be 9772624991. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record which indicates that aforesaid mobile number is being used by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that during investigation, information was received from the mobile companies and it has clearly on record that petitioner is not the registered user of aforesaid mobile number. Learned counsel submitted that there is not an iota of evidence available on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

¶19

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the disclosure statement of co-accused without any direct/corroborative evidence cannot be used to the disadvantage of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to prima-facie satisfy the Court with regard to investigation qua the aforementioned mobile number being used by the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/016769]

[CRLMB-310/2023]

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Narayan @ Pappu S/o Mohanlal Mali shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶28

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶29

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.42

Narayan @ Pappu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan @ Pappu 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

Kasam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakh Ji Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Badiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Meh Ram Mehra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan