Dismissed

Vikram @ Vikki v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2024CRLMB/1292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects three connected bail applications filed by accused persons charged under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The court refused bail citing the commercial quantity of narcotics recovered and a pending Supreme Court challenge to bail of a co-accused, without assessing merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite hearing.

Vikram @ Vikki Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:15690]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1292/2024 Vikram @ Vikki S/o Khartaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Saarano Ka Bas, P.s. Boranada, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.) (At Present Incarcerated In Dist. Jail, Rajsamand).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2319/2023 Ramdev S/o Lt. Sukhram Jat, Aged About 21 Years, Kagton Ka Baas, Dangiyawas, P.s. Dangiyawas, Dist. Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Rajsamand).

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8018/2023 Balwant @ Ballu S/o Asha Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Saloda Police Station Singoli District Nimach (M.p.) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Rajsamand).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
	Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya
	Mr. Nayab Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sharwan Bishnoi,PP

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶21

Order

¶22

08/04/2024

¶23

All the aforesaid bail applications have been preferred by the accused-petitioners, namely, (i) Vikram @ Vikki, (ii) Ramdev (iii) Balwant @ Ballu in relation to FIR No. 194/2021 lodged at Police

[2024:RJ-JD:15690]

[CRLMB-1292/2024]

(2 of 4)

Station Bhim, District Rajsamand for the offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. act.

¶28

While arguing the bail applications preferred by Vikram @ Vikki (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1292/2024), Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has been entangled after one year of the alleged incident. Further, it is submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner is only to the extent that he managed to pick and drop the other accused persons. Further, it is submitted that the alleged offending vehicle so recovered with contraband articles was not of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in FIR No. 55/2021 lodged at Police Station Rayla under Sections 201, 202, 212, 225 and 302 of the IPC and under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which was registered alongwith the present FIR for death of two constables.

¶29

Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya, learned counsel while arguing the bail applications of Ramdev and Balwant @ Ballu submits that they have also falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that accused-petitioners have been entangled in the present case after one year from the date of incident. Learned counsel submits that co-accused Sunil has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application 7587/2023 and the case of the accused-petitioner Balwant is not

[2024:RJ-JD:15690]

[CRLMB-1292/2024]

(3 of 4)

distinguishable from the case of Sunil, therefore, the accusedpetitioner Balwant may also be enlarged on bail.

¶34

Learned counsel submits that in so far as the accusedpetitioner Ramdev is concerned, no contraband was recovered from his possession. Further, it is submitted that neither the petitioner Ramdev was the seller nor he was the purchaser of the alleged recovered contraband and he has no connection with the alleged offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for all the petitioners submit the petitioners are behind the bars since long and the trial of the case would take time, therefore, petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in so far as the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to the co-accused Sunil is concerned, challenging the said order, an SLP has already been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per prosecution story, there was active role of all the aforesaid accused-petitioners for commission of the offence. It is submitted that the allegation against the accused-petitioner Balwant is that he loaded the contraband articles in the offending vehicle and paid a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- through ' Hawala '. The allegation against the accusedpetitioner Vikram is that he managed to pick and drop the coaccused. It is submitted that two constables were murdered and a separate FIR has been lodged. Further, it is submitted that in the present case, 292.570 kilograms of poppy-husk was recovered and granting of bail is hit by the provisions of Section 37 of the

[2024:RJ-JD:15690]

[CRLMB-1292/2024]

(4 of 4)

N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, it is prayed that the bail applications preferred by the petitioners may be rejected.

¶39

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶40

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that in the present case, though the co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to co-accused Sunil, but as per learned Public Prosecutor, an SLP has already been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the fact that 292.570 kilograms of poppy-husk is recovered in the present case, which is in commercial quantity and grant of bail is hit by the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to all the petitioners.

¶41

Accordingly, the aforesaid bail applications are hereby rejected.

¶42

The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case.

¶43

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court either by FAX or through E-mail.

¶44

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶45

564-566--Dinesh/-

Vikram @ Vikki v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Vikki 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

Sumant Kumar Vs the New India Insurance Company Limited

Aaradhna Vyas Vs the New India Insurance Company Limited

National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh and Ors.

Moti Vs Bhimraj

Rama Devi Vs Lrs of Neki Ram

Bhanwar Singh Vs Ram Singh