Allowed

Naman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CRLMB/2224/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused arrested after a raid on a restaurant recovering psychotropic substances above commercial quantity sought bail. The court found no credible evidence of their involvement, noted similarly placed co-accused were already bailed, satisfied the twin Section 37 NDPS conditions, and enlarged both on bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners enlarged on bail in FIR No.466/2023 upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.

Naman Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22647]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5389/2024

¶4

Yuvraj Singh S/o Kulwant Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Naya Ward No. 17, Anupgarh, Teh And Dist Anupgarh, Raj. (Lodged In Anupgarh Jail)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2224/2024 Naman S/o Deepak Middha, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 14, Anupgarh, Ps Anupgarh, Dist Anupgarh. (Lodged In Anupgarh)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Ms. Priya Bishnoi Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
		Mr. Anil Kumar, Inspector, SHO Police Station Anupgarh, District
		Sriganganagar

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶17

Order

¶18

20/05/2024

¶19

These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.466/2023 registered at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/22, 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

[CRLMB-5389/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:22647]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that coaccused persons namely Shashikant Jha (S.B. criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No.1022/2024), Amrit Pal (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14383/2023) and Jagveer Singh @ Gyanprakash (S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No.2707/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.02.2024 & 06.03.2024 respectively.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the as per the prosecution’s story on 14.07.2023, SHO, Police Station Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar, received an information that illegal trade of Psychotropic substance was taking place at Paradise Restaurant run and owned by co-accused Raja Ram @ Raju Dal. When the said Paradise Resturant was raided by the SHO, Police Station Anupgarh a huge quantity of Psychotropic substance, greater than commercial quantity was recovered.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were found sitting in the Paradise Restaurant at the time when the raid was being conducted. Learned counsel further submitted that there is nothing on record indicating that at the pertinent time of incident the petitioners were involved in the illegal trade of Psychotropic substance which was taking place at Paradise Restaurant. Learned counsel submitted that the specific information, was received by the SHO, Police Station Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar only against the co-accused Raja Ram @ Raju Dal who is the owner of the Paradise Restaurant. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing available on record

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:22647]

[CRLMB-5389/2024]

indicating that the petitioners in connivanee with the co-accused Raja Ram @ Raju Dal were engaged in the said illegal trading.

¶30

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

¶31

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that the present bail applications may be rejected.

¶32

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

¶33

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the specific information regarding illegal trade of Psychotropic substance was received by the SHO, Police Station Anupgarh, District Sriganganagar only against the co-accused Raja Ram @ Raju Dal. This Court also prima facie finds that there is no credible evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. This Court also prima facie finds that the above name co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and the cases of the present petitioners are not worse from that of the co-accused already enlarged on bail. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents; the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners influencing the

[2024:RJ-JD:22647]

[CRLMB-5389/2024]

(4 of 4)

material prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail, thus without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶38

In the opinion of this Court the twin condition mentioned under Section 37 of NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶39

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Yuvraj Singh S/o Kulwant Singh (ii) Naman S/o Deepak Middha shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.466/2023 registered at Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.,100,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶40

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶41

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶42

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶43

29-30-mohit/-

Naman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naman 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

Radheshyam Menariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar @ Bhudra Vs State of Rajasthan

Bishnaram @ Vishnu Vs State of Rajasthan

Harbansh Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan