Allowed

Gurmel Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2023CRLMB/507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed for petitioner in NDPS case where court applied co-ordinate bench order granting bail to co-accused on similar grounds, finding no distinguishable facts and Section 37 NDPS not attracted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to trial judge

Gurmel Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/014194]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 507/2023

¶4

Gurmel Singh S/o Late Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/ o Abubshahar, Haryana, Presently Residing At Ward No. 56, Bijli Colony, Sureshiya, P.s. Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged At District Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bal Tej Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

09/05/2023

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.53/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the co-accused- Samandar S/o Lalaram has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.07.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.9411/2022. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel submitted that main ground on which the benefit of bail had been extended to the co-accused-Samandar is that his

[2023/RJJD/014194]

[CRLMB-507/2023]

(2 of 4)

involvement in the present case was sought to be established on the basis of phone calls through a sim which was not even in his name. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case also the involvement of the petitioner has been shown on the basis of phone calls between the present petitioner and co-accused persons but the sim used for making phone calls does not belong to the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. For ready reference order dated 20.07.2022 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶19

“The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 53/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hanumangarh, for offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of dismissing first bail application of the petitioner, liberty was granted to file fresh bail application after framing of charge. Afterwards, charge has been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the statement given by the co-accused Ravindra under Section 67 of NDPS Act. Petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of mobile talks on the sim number which was not in the name of petitioner. Petitioner is

[2023/RJJD/014194]

[CRLMB-507/2023]

(3 of 4)

behind the bars since 18.6.2022. Trial of the case may take sufficient long time to conclude. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to grant bail application.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶27

Having regard to the rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner Samander S/o Lalaram, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 53/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail provided he shall execute personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sound & solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so.”

¶29

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application however, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused- Samandar S/o Lalaram has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

From the perusal of the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is evident that the co-ordinate Bench while enlarging co-accused-Samandar has taken into consideration the fact that the sim which was being used for phone calls between the co-accused persons was not in his name. In the considered

[2023/RJJD/014194]

[CRLMB-507/2023]

(4 of 4)

opinion of this Court, the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused person and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Thus, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS are not attracted in the present case.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Gurmel Singh S/o Late Mukhtyar Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.53/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Hanumangarh, 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 do so.

¶37

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶38

50-KshamaD/-

Gurmel Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmel Singh 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

Punkesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeetram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan