Allowed

Saddeek Son of Atatr Khan, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2024CRLMB/1000/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under the NDPS Act. Despite the charge-sheet, the Court granted bail on the prima facie ground of procedural non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act regarding sample collection and delayed deposition in FSL, distinguishing the absolute embargo of Section 37.

What did the court decide?

Accused to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Saddeek Son of Atatr Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7040]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1000/2024 Saddeek Son Of Atar Khan, Resident Of Khanpur Mewan, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub-Jail Tijara, District Alwar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1502/2024 Sajid S/o Ajamdeen, R/o Khareta, Police Station Tatarpur Chourah, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar).

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1503/2024 Taiyyab S/o Atar Khan, R/o Khanpur, Mewan, Police Station Kishangarh Baas, District Alwar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar)

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶21

12/02/2024

¶22

These three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody since 15.01.2023 in connection with FIR No.06/2023 registered at Police Station Shekhpur Ahir, District Bhiwadi for offence under Section

[CRLMB-1000/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:7040]

(2 of 4)

8/20 of the NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet for offences under Sections 8/20 & 42 of NDPS Act.

¶27

Learned counsel submits that the accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that the work of drawing sample was not done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argues that the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-compliance of this provision of law. In support of this contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr : (2016) 3 SCC 3749, (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 SCC online SC 862 and (3) Simarnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.l.) No. 1958 of 2023.

¶28

He further submits that independent witnesses were not associated during recovery proceedings. He also draws attention of this Court to the fact that samples were deposited in FSL after 23 days of the alleged recovery which is also in violation of the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988. He argued that according to the Standing Order No.1/88, samples should be deposited in FSL within 72 hours from the time of drawing samples. Besides these arguments, he argues that inventory was prepared after 24 days of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that memo of impression seal does not bear signature of accused while same was prepared in presence of accused at

[2024:RJ-JP:7040]

[CRLMB-1000/2024]

(3 of 4)

spot. The petitioners do not have criminal antecedents of similar nature and they are in custody since 15.01.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He thus, prays that the instant bail applications may be accepted and the petitioners may be released on bail.

¶33

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed these bail applications on the ground that recovered contraband comes within the definition of commercial quantity and the petitioners have been apprehended at the spot and thus, considering the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

¶34

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the facts that as per the material available on record, prima facie, there is non-compliance

[2024:RJ-JP:7040]

[CRLMB-1000/2024]

(4 of 4)

of provisions of Sections 52-A of NDPS Act; inventory was prepared after a delay of 24 days; samples were deposited after 23 days of the alleged recovery; absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature as also considering period of custody of the petitioners, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept these instant bail applications.

¶39

These bail applications are accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - (1) Saddeek Son Of Atar Khan, (2) Sajid S/o Ajamdeen & (3) Taiyyab S/o Atar Khan, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.06/2023 registered at Police Station Shekhpur Ahir, District Bhiwadi, shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶40

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶41

CHARU SONI /15-17

Saddeek Son of Atatr Khan, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddeek Son of Atatr Khan, 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

Murli Manohar Naamdev S/O Shri Badri Lal Naama Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan

Neetu Singh S/O Shri Bhup Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay S/O Dhanraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/O Chauthmal Choudhary, Vs Govind Sahai Pareek S/O Late Shri Shiv Sahai Pareek