Allowed

Vishnu Dutt Khileri v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Oct 2023CRLMB/5756/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the bail application filed by Vishnu Dutt Khileri charged under the NDPS Act. The Court found prima facie merit in arguments regarding illegal seizure procedures and significant delay in trial attributable neither to the petitioner nor the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.136/2020 upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Vishnu Dutt Khileri Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:35890]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5756/2023

¶4

Vishnu Dutt Khileri S/o Sh. Ram Bhagat Khileri Grandson Of Hanuman Khileri, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 3 K.p.d. Dhani Ps Rawla Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Lodged At Sub Jail Anoopgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Devi Lal Rawla
	Mr.	Pravesh Kumar Rawla
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Anita Gehlot,P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

19/10/2023

¶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.136/2020 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 25 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the police on 15.07.2020 at 9:45 am, while on a routine round of the city, having suspicion on the activities of the petitioner, stopped him and recovered psychotropic substance weighing 3 kg. 600 gms. from his conscious possession. Learned counsel submitted that the entire seizure proceeding suffers from illegalities. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that neither the samples were

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:35890]

[CRLMB-5756/2023]

taken nor the seizure memo was prepared at the spot and all the papers were prepared by the police after taking the petitioner to the nearby police station.

¶19

Placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2011 SC (Supp.) 787 , learned counsel contended that non-collection of the samples as per the procedure laid down, at the initial stage of seizure is an incurable defect and the entire seizure proceedings thus, comes under the shadow of doubt.

¶20

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.07.2020 and till date, statements of not a single prosecution witness out of total 15 cited prosecution witnesses has been recorded before competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioner and to substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was drawn towards order sheets of the competent criminal court.

¶21

Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No(s).915 of 2023 and Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha (Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No(s).4169/23 and prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that huge quantity of psychotropic substance was recovered from the conscious possession of the

[2023:RJ-JD:35890]

[CRLMB-5756/2023]

(3 of 4)

petitioner, therefore, looking to seriousness of the accusations, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶27

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

¶28

Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and having perused the FIR and challan papers, this Court prima facie finds sufficient merit in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the seizure memo was not prepared and the samples were not taken at the spot/place of occurrence, the seizure proceedings comes under clouds thereby affecting the credibility of the prosecution’s case. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner who is aged about 37 years, is in judicial custody since 15.07.2020 and till date, not a single prosecution witness has been examined before competent criminal court. This Court also prima facie finds that delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioner. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Vishnu Dutt Khileri S/o Sh. Ram Bhagat Khileri Grandson Of Hanuman Khileri shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.136/2020 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sriganganagar, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

(4 of 4)

[CRLMB-5756/2023]

[2023:RJ-JD:35890]

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

/tarun goyal/-

Vishnu Dutt Khileri v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Dutt Khileri 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

Pana Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Balveer Singh @ Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan

Lata Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohardan Arjundanji Gadhvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Amra Ram Rinwa Vs State of Rajasthan