Dismissed

Nishan Singh @ Soni v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2024CRLMB/1170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a narcotics case involving 22 Kgs of Heroine transported at the India-Pakistan border, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., holding that Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, refusing to go into merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial.

Nishan Singh @ Soni Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 4) [CRLMB-1585/2024]

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:15937]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1585/2024

¶5

Amrik Singh S/o Jarnail Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Palla Megha,p.s. Sadar Firozpur Dist. Firozpur, Punjab. (At Present Lodged In Gajsinghpur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1170/2024 Nishan Singh @ Soni S/o Jogendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Palla Megha Basti Mattad, Panchayat Ghammasinghwala, Ps Sadar Firozpur, Dist Firozpur (Punjab) (Lodged In Central Jail Faridkot)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	RR Jangu
	Mr.	Sharwan Choudhary
	Mr.	BS Sandhu
	Mr.	DS Gharsana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Singh,PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶18

Order

¶19

09/04/2024

¶20

The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.22/2017 of Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 25 & 29 of NDPS

[2024:RJ-JD:15937]

[CRLMB-1585/2024]

(2 of 4)

Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the Investigating Agency has fabricated the story. It is further submitted that no recovery of mobile and contraband article were made from the petitioners. It is also submitted that the alleged material witness Jagraj Singh has turned hostile. Further, it is submitted that there is no evidence available on record to establish as to the location in Pakistan from where the contraband article was taken in whose custody and from where in India the same was sold out. It is submitted that there is noncompliance of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act and the petitioners are behind bars for more than four years and the trial of the case will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court and orders passed by this Court which is as follows :-

¶26

Mohammed Khalid and Anr. vs. The State of Telangana reported in 2024 INSC 158 (Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2023).

¶27

Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570 (Criminal Appeal No.1443 of 2023).

¶28

Dinesh Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Criminal Misc. Vth Bail Application No.13460/2023, decided on 29.11.2023, Rajasthan High Court.

¶29

Surpal Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.2692/2024, decided on 06.03.2024, Rajasthan High Court.

[2024:RJ-JD:15937]

[CRLMB-1585/2024]

(3 of 4)

Hari Singh vs. State of Rajasthan SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.753/2024, decided on 06.03.2024, Rajasthan High Court.

¶34

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that while rejecting the first bail application of petitioner-Amrik Singh, the coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statements of Investigating Officers as well prosecution witness-Jagraj Singh. However, till this date the statements of all the Investigating officers have not been recorded. Further, it is submitted that in the present case, the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that in the present case, as per prosecution story there is allegation of transporting and selling 22 Kgs of Heroine at international border between the India and Pakistan. It is further submitted that the aforesaid the aforesaid 22 Kgs of Heroin were packed in 22 packets of 1 Kg out of which 20 packets were sold out to co-accused - Chidrapal Singh. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners may not enlarged on bail.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that in the present case, as per prosecution story, there is allegation that 22 Kgs of Heroin has been transported at the international border of India and Pakistan, and the grant of bail is hit by provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, I

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:15937]

[CRLMB-1585/2024]

am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners.

¶40