Dismissed

Jetharam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2023CRLMB/5129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur) dismissed the combined bail applications filed by Jetharam, Galaram, and Jodharam accused under Section 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. The court found that the court cannot record mandatory satisfaction under Section 37 NDPS Act due to the nature of the offence and the presence of accused in the vehicle at the time of seizure.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; petitioners are at liberty to file fresh bail applications after recording of statements of Seizure Officer/Investigating Officer.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:34440]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5129/2023

¶4

Jetharam S/o Sh. Punaram, Aged About 26 Years, Pipala, P.s. Bali, Teh. Bali, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Pali).

¶5

Galaram S/o Sh. Chunaram, Aged About 23 Years, Pipala, P.s. Bali, Teh. Bali, Dist. Pali, Raj. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Pali).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4010/2023

¶12

Jodharam S/o Shri Dalaram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Aaneva Ps Khinwara Dist. Pali Raj.

¶13

(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Pali)

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
	Mr.Vikram Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶20

ORDER

¶21

17/10/2023

¶22

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.11/2023 registered at Police Station Khinwara, District Pali, for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

[2023:RJ-JD:34440]

[CRLMB-5129/2023]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioners- Jetharam and Galaram had no knowledge about contraband (poppy husk/straw) being transported in the offending vehicle. The petitioners- Jetharam and Galaram were engaged as labourers for loading and unloading the material which was being transported in the vehicle.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner Jodharam submitted that contraband recovered from the offending vehicle is marginally above commercial quantity. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and therefore, looking to his poor health, he deserves to be enlarged on bail, particularly when no other case under NDPS Act is pending against the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was drawn towards medical reports issued qua the petitioner by the Medical Institutes/Hospitals.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submitted that there is no independent witness in the case, all the witnesses are official witness and there is no possibility that the petitioners would influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 09.02.2023, 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-petitioners.

¶29

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered from the offending

[2023:RJ-JD:34440]

[CRLMB-5129/2023]

(3 of 4)

vehicle in which the petitioner- Jodha Ram was sitting on the wheel whereas other petitioners were sitting besides him at the time of recovery. Learned Public Prosecutor thus, submitted that it is totally wrong to contend that the petitioners had no knowledge about contraband being transported in the offending vehicle. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the nature of accusations against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶34

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

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR and the charge sheet, this Court prima facie finds that though it is true that no other case under the NDPS Act is pending against the petitioners but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner- Jodharam was found on the wheel of the offending vehicle whereas other petitioners had accompanied the petitionerJodharam from the very beginning thus, the presumption would be that they were well aware as to what was loaded in the offending vehicle.

¶36

Having carefully perused the medical reports of petitionerJodharam, this Court prima facie finds that the ailment from which the petitioner is suffering is curable and no medical report attached with the bail application indicates that the petitioner is required to undergo some surgical intervention or day-to-day monitoring of his health is necessitated.

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:34440]

[CRLMB-5129/2023]

In view of the findings/observations recorded in preceding paras, his Court is unable to record its mandatory satisfaction in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to enlarge the petitioner on bail

¶41

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶42

However, the petitioners shall be liberty to file fresh bail applications after recording of the statements of Seizure Officer/ Investigating Officer before competent criminal court.

¶43

It is expected from the competent criminal court that statements of Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer will be recorded on priority basis.

¶44

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.

¶45

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶46

/tarun goyal/

Jetharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jetharam 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

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of Rajasthan

Deep Bhanushali Vs State of Rajasthan

Angrez Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Popat Lal Vs Arvind

Mohindra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan