Allowed

Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2024CRLMB/1412/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to a petitioner accused under the NDPS Act. He is a licensed drug seller; the case relies only on a co-accused's statement, and no license cancellation proceedings exist. The court granted bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail conditioned on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:10498]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1412/2024

¶4

Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Teen Batti Meera Gate Road, Opposite Mukhayakumar School, Palanpur, Police Station Palanpur East, Dist. Banaskantha, Gujarat (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Sirohi)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Mangi Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

01/03/2024

¶13

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.209/2023, registered at Police Station Sarupganj, District Sirohi, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11271/2023) was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023.

¶15

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

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a huge quantity of psychotropic substance (Tramodal Hydrochloride,

[2024:RJ-JD:10498]

[CRLMB-1412/2024]

(2 of 4)

Paracetamol, Dicyclomine Hydrochloride Capsules Spasmotek plus) was recovered from the house of the co-accused Yogesh Kumar. Co-accused Yogesh Kumar in his disclosure statements stated that he had procured the aforesaid psychotropic substance (greater than commercial quantity) from the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Yogesh Kumar, there is no other evidence available on record indicating his involvement in the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner possesses a valid license for sale and stock of the drugs under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The same is valid upto 01.09.2026. It was further contended that no proceedings for cancellation of the license issued to the petitioner to sell, stock, or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale, the drugs specified in Schedule C and C(1)(i) [excluding those specified in Schedule X] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; has been ensued by the Competent Authority till date.

¶21

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the present petitioner is in judicial custody; the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶22

Per Contra, l earned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶23

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the challan papers, this Court in its prima facie opinion finds that petitioner is

[2024:RJ-JD:10498]

[CRLMB-1412/2024]

(3 of 4)

possessing a valid license under Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for sale and stock of the drugs specified in Schedule C and C(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. No proceedings for cancellations of the aforesaid license has been initiated by the Competent Authority.

¶28

This Court, also in its prima facie opinion finds that the present petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused Yogesh Kumar. Apart from the disclosure statements of the Coaccused Yogesh Kumar recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.

¶29

This Court also prima facie finds that the present petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the investigation against him has already been completed.

¶30

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶31

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap S/o Shri Virendra Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.209/2023, registered at Police Station Sarupganj, District Sirohi, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-1412/2024]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JD:10498]

¶34

date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion

¶35

of the trial.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

15-himanshu/-

Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintan @ Chetan Jagtap 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

Shivnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Karnaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Krishana Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kathat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajmal Singh @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan