Allowed

Harshid Khan S/O Abud Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2023CRLMB/3789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to Harshid Khan in a declaration case under the NDPS Act. The court allowed the application relying on the legal principle that statements obtained from persons during interrogation are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, noting that the co-accused providing information was already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each and complying with specific conditions.

Harshid Khan S/O Abud Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:23510]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3789/2023

¶4

Harshid Khan S/o Abud Khan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Khoh Nagoriyan, Rahim Nagar, Jaipur Ladawato Ka Mohalla, Jamdoli, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Prasad Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

18/09/2023

¶13

The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.75/2023 registered at Police Station Khoh-Nagoriyan, District Jaipur for the offence under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. During the course of investigation, offence under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act has also been added.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of information provided by the co-accused persons, who were found in possession of 20g smack. He also submits that co-accused – Pawan Maurya has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court . He submits that interrogation

[2023:RJ-JP:23510]

[CRLMB-3789/2023]

(2 of 3)

of the co-accused persons cannot be used against the petitioner as the same is inadmissible in evidence in view of provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that contraband recovered in possession of the co-accused persons was provided by the petitioner.

¶20

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of information provided by the co-accused persons and co-accused – Pawan Maurya has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court so also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) , but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Khoh-Nagoriyan, District Jaipur in FIR No.75/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner – Harshid Khan S/o Abud Khan , he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:23510]

[CRLMB-3789/2023]

concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶27

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶28

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶29

(iv) it is also directed that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during pendency of bail granted by this Court.

¶30

(v) The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is concluded.

¶31

If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to petitioner by this Court.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

165-Nirmala

Harshid Khan S/O Abud Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshid Khan S/O Abud Khan 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

Kapil Dev Son of Shri Shambhu Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bipul Sheel S/O Boloram Vs State of Rajasthan

Akbar Khan S/O Shri Kamruddin Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Praveen Chand Nahar S/O Late Shri Santosh Chand Nahar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chand Yadav Son of Shri Samay Singh Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jasveer Singh @ Jasveer Chaudhary S/O Shri Aatmaram Saharan, Vs State of Rajasthan