Dismissed

Shiwanu Grour v. State

Rajasthan HC28 Mar 2023CRLMB/791/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur rejected bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by five accused persons charged with offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act regarding possession and delivery of commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications requested by all petitioners were rejected dismissing the applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Shiwanu Grour Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/007586]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7460/2022

¶4

Sandeep Kumar @ Deepak S/o Sh. Surendra Pal @ Chindrapal, Aged About 30 Years, W.no. 11, Gaushala Road, Jaisar, Teh. Vijaynagar, Dist. Sriganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13029/2021 Dhanwantri @ Rinku S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o 2/278, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14941/2021 Dhanwantri @ Rinku S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Agarwal, R/o 2/278, Housing Board, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 791/2022 Shiwanu Grour S/o Shri Krishanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Nazdik Arodawansh Dharmshala, Sadulsahar, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

[2023/RJJD/007586]

[CRLMB-7460/2022]

(2 of 6)

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7443/2022 Sandeep Kumar @ Deepak S/o Sh. Surendra Pal @ Chindrapal, Aged About 30 Years, W.no. 11, Gaushala Road, Jaisar, Teh. Vijaynagar, Dist. Sriganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7457/2022 Sandeep Kumar @ Deepak S/o Sh. Surendra Pal @ Chindrapal, Aged About 30 Years, W.no. 11, Gaushala Road, Jaisar, Teh. Vijaynagar, Dist. Sriganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar).

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8573/2022 Rajat @ Bablu S/o Sh. Bhagirath, Aged About 27 Years, Vill. Surewali, Teh. Piliganga, P.s. Goluwala, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

¶39

----Petitioner

¶40

Versus

¶41

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶42

----Respondent

¶43

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11464/2022 Manish Gilhotra S/o Sh. Gurdash Rai, Aged About 42 Years, 78-E Block At Present Kiryadar 207 Vinoba Basti Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

¶44

----Petitioner

¶45

Versus

¶46

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶47

[2023/RJJD/007586]		(3 of 6)	[CRLMB-7460/2022] ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Ashok Bishnoi G.R. Goyal Mangi Lal Vishnoi Kuldeep Sharma Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P.

¶48

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶49

Order

¶50

28/03/2023

¶51

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR Nos.290/2020, 476/2020 and 477/2020 of Police Stations Kotwali, District Sriganganagar and Jawahar Nagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶52

Before dealing with the above bail applications it would be relevant to state the brief facts of the cases pertaining to the (1) FIR No.290/2020- the charge-sheet alleges recovery of prohibited tablets containing Tramadol having commercial quantity from possession of the main accused-Manish Gilhotra along with the specific indulgence of the accused Dhanvantari @ Rinku and Sandeep @ Deepak, demonstrating the delivery of the aforesaid drugs to the main accused Manish Gilhotra. The Investigating Officer has analyzed the telephonic conversation transmitted between the accused persons and annexed the CDR with the charge-sheet. The police has charge-sheeted all the three accused

(4 of 6)

[2023/RJJD/007586]

[CRLMB-7460/2022]

persons for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 Of the NDPS Act. The entire description of indulgence of the accused Sandeep @ Deepak and Dhnavantari @ Rinku gets its mentioned on page No.-58 (copy annexed with criminal misc. Bail Application No.7460/2022) of the charge-sheet.

¶57

The facts regarding FIR No.476/2020- the charge-sheet alleges recovery of prohibited tablets containing Tramadol having commercial quantity from possession of the main accusedDhanwantri @ Rinku along with the specific indulgence of the accused Shiwanu Grour and Sandeep @ Deepak demonstrating the delivery of the aforesaid drugs to the main accused Dhanwantri @ Rinku. The Investigating Officer has analyzed the telephonic conversation transmitted between the accused persons and annexed the CDR with the charge-sheet. The police has charge-sheeted all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 Of the NDPS Act. The entire description of indulgence of the accused Shiwanu Grour and Sandeep @ Deepak gets its mentioned on page Nos.-51 and 52 (copy annexed with criminal misc. Bail Application No.7443/2022) of the charge-sheet.

¶58

The facts regarding FIR No.477/2020- the charge-sheet alleges recovery of prohibited tablets containing Tramadol having commercial quantity from possession of the main accused-Anil Kumar along with the specific indulgence of the accused Dhanwantri @ Rinku and Sandeep @ Deepak demonstrating the delivery of the aforesaid drugs to the main accused Anil Kumar. The Investigating Officer has analyzed the telephonic conversation

[2023/RJJD/007586]

[CRLMB-7460/2022]

(5 of 6)

transmitted between the accused persons and annexed the CDR with the charge-sheet. The police has charge-sheeted all the three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 Of the NDPS Act. The entire description of indulgence of the accused Dhanwantri @ Rinku and Sandeep @ Deepak gets its mentioned on page Nos.-22 and 23 (copy annexed with criminal misc. Bail Application No.7457/22) of the charge-sheet.

¶63

Learned counsels for petitioners submit that accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in all the three FIRs and were charge-sheeted under Sections 8/22 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that the accused persons are in judicial custody since their arrest and the trial of the case may take considerable span.

¶64

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed all the bail applications and argued that in the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and considering the fact that all the accused persons were involved in the sale and transport of the Psychotropic Drugs, having commercial quantity deserves to be rejected.

¶65

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶66

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence that the above stated facts in the charge-sheet submitted before learned trial court against all the accused persons, depicts their conscious involvement in the commission of crime and also indicates that they were “Hand-in-Glove” with each

[2023/RJJD/007586]

[CRLMB-7460/2022]

(6 of 6)

other. The mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act forbids the liberty of granting bail to the accused persons at this stage. It does not appear that accused persons were not involved in the commission of the offence under Section 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. It is also relevant to mention here that all the accused persons were involved in the above stated three FIRs and against them charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act has already been filed before the Trial court. It is relevant to mention that in FIR No.476/2020, it is the second bail application of accused- Shiwanu Grour. His first bail application was rejected vide order dated 09.09.2021. It is also pertinent to narrate that in FIR No.290/2022, accused petitioner- Manish Gilhotra is the main culprit, from whom prohibited drugs containing commercial quantity was recovered, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence and the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I am not inclined to accept the bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners.

¶71

Accordingly, these bail applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are rejected.

¶72

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶73

Suraj/-

Shiwanu Grour v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiwanu Grour v. State

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

Mangi Lal Vs State

Seva Vs U.O.I.

Vikas @ Pariyo Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawaniram @ Bhani Vs State

Suresh Bishnoi Vs State

Prashant Garg Vs State of Rajasthan