Allowed

Aakash Dudi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Mar 2024CRLMB/2463/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application for NDPS offences (8/15, 29) as alleged prospective purchaser of contraband. The investigating officer's evidence failed to prove the SIM linked to the applicant was used by him; no bank transactions were found. Bail granted on personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court; to appear on all hearing dates.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:14010]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 2463/2024

¶4

Aakash Dudi S/o Sh. Hansraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sadhuwali, PS Jawahar Nagar, District Sriganganagar, Raj.

¶5

(Lodged In Sub Jail Suratgarh)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harshad Bhadu
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

22/03/2024

¶14

This second bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 100/2022 registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').

¶15

The first application filed by the applicant being S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 7542/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.11.2023, with liberty to file afresh, once statement of investigating officer is recorded.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the investigating officer had appeared in the witness box and has failed to establish and prove that the sim No. 9660898568 was being used by the present applicant. Inviting the Court’s attention

[2024:RJ-JD:14010]

[CRLMB-2463/2024]

(2 of 3)

towards the cross-examination, learned counsel submitted that the investigating officer has clearly admitted that no transaction occurred in applicant’s bank account and that he had not inquired about the person using the above referred sim. He therefore, argued that the prosecution’s story thus, turns out to be based on no material/evidence and thus, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that maybe in the examination-in-chief, the investigating officer has not been able to depose properly and during cross-examination he could not withstand the question posed by the applicant’s counsel, but the statement of Rahul Dudy recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in whose name the sim in question has been issued is clearly indicative of the fact that the applicant was using the sim.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record. 6. It is to be noted that the applicant has been inculpated as a prospective purchaser of the contraband substance in question. The evidence, which the investigating officer has collected and on the basis whereof, the charge-sheet was filed, was that the above referred sim was being used by the present applicant, but in his evidence, the investigating officer has failed to establish that the sim in question was being used by the applicant.

¶23

That apart, during his cross-examination, the investigating officer has clearly admitted that no transactions in applicant’s bank account took place and that he had not conducted any inquiry or collected document so as to establish that the sim in question was being used by the applicant.

[2024:RJ-JD:14010]

[CRLMB-2463/2024]

(3 of 3)

In the opinion of this Court, simply on the basis of the statement of Rahul Dudy – the person in whose name sim was issued and the fact that the applicant is his brother, unless Customer Application Form is led in evidence and the statement of Rahul Dudy given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is exhibited, the applicant cannot be held guilty.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid, the present bail application filed by the applicant deserves acceptance. 10. Consequently, the present second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Aakash Dudi S/o Sh. Hansraj arrested in connection with the FIR No. 100/2022 registered at Police Station Suratgarh Sadar, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶29

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶30

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

99-Mak/-

Aakash Dudi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash Dudi 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

Prince Kumar @ Kala Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra @ Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Chandra Kala Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Mal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Manohar Lal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan