Dismissed

Balveer @ Radhey v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Apr 2023CRLMB/492/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered bail applications filed by Balveer @ Radhey and Rajendra Kumar accused under the NDPS Act. Citing the criminal liability for commercial quantity contraband, the court held that Section 37 of the NDPS Act precluded bail and rejected the applications.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial.

Balveer @ Radhey Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012263]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 492/2023

¶4

Balveer @ Radhey S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Chotala, Police Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1099/2023 Rajendra Kumar @ Raju @ Rajkumar S/o Rameshwarlal @ Mishraram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 5 Kishanpura Dikhnada Ps Hanumangarh Town Dist. Hanumangarh Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Sangriya)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma Mr. Jitendra Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP Mr. Lal Bahadur Chandra, SI, SHO, PS-Talwara, District Hanumangarh

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶17

Judgment

¶18

26/04/2023

¶19

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439, CrPC on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in connection with FIR No. 359/2022 of Police Station Sangariya,

[2023/RJJD/012263]

[CRLMB-492/2023]

(2 of 4)

District Hanumangarh for the offences under Section 8/15, 25, 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶24

The first bail application of petitioner Balveer @ Radhey was dismissed as not pressed with the liberty to file same afresh after filing of the charge-sheet on 01.08.2022.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no recovery has been made from the petitioners in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been entangled in the present case merely on the basis of call detail records. It was argued that mere call detail records cannot cast suspicion on the accused unless the same are accompanied by conversations in such calls. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Arvind Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan: (2015) 2 CRILR(Raj) 553. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in the present matter.Thus, it is prayed that the petitioners may be granted the benefit of bail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

¶26

(II) Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: (2018) 8 SCC 271

¶27

(II) Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 152/2013, decided on 29 October, 2020.

¶28

Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 60 kg of poppy husk has been recovered in the present case which is in commercial

[2023/RJJD/012263]

[CRLMB-492/2023]

(3 of 4)

quantity and therefore grant of bail in the present case is hit by the provisions of Section 37, NDPS Act. It is further submitted that as per the allegations made at page No.15 of the paper book (charge-sheet), accused Surendra was carrying total 1 quintal and 40 kgs of poppy husk out of which he sold 80 kgs to the petitioner Balveer @ Radhey. It is also submitted that in so far as petitioner Rajendra Kumar is concerned, he has specifically stated in his statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that he used to go with his brother Ramkumar to purchase poppy husk from another supplier and there are call detail records to connect the present petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor also brought the attention of this Court towards the call detail record of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were in constant touch with the main accused-Surendra. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor prayed that the bail applications may be rejected.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. I have carefully gone through the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioners. The judgments are of no help to the petitioners at the stage of deciding the bail applications because at the time of deciding the bail application the merit of the case is not considered.

¶34

In the present case, the recovered contraband is in commercial quantity and therefore, the grant of bail is hit by the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act, therefore, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

[2023/RJJD/012263]

[CRLMB-492/2023]

(4 of 4)

Consequently, the present bail applications are hereby rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.

¶39

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶40

3-4-Bharti/-

Balveer @ Radhey v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balveer @ Radhey 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

Bhom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustafa Yunus Kha @ Batla Shoib Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan @ Banna Vs State of Rajasthan