Allowed

Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRLMB/2510/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 439 CrPC for a petitioner arrested in an FIR involving recovery of 201 kg poppy husk. The Investigating Officer's court statements indicated no evidence of the petitioner's role in sale or purchase or possession of the house where the contraband was found. Finding the twin conditions of Section 37 NDPS Act satisfied, the High Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to trial court's satisfaction.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22293]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2510/2024

¶4

Subhash S/o Moti Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Khedi Arya Nagar, Ps Chhoti Sadri, Dist Pratapgarh, Raj. (Lodged In Dist Jail, Pratapgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Bhagirath RayBishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
	Mr. Prakash Panwar,AGA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

17/05/2024

¶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.259/2022, registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶14

The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5798/2023) was dismissed as not pressed at this stage with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the statements of I.O. vide order dated 20.10.2023.

¶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 as per the prosecution, on 03.08.2022 at around 7:00 P.M., a police team lead by SHO/Incharge of Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District

[2024:RJ-JD:22293]

[CRLMB-2510/2024]

(2 of 4)

Pratapgarh during routine patrolling, reached near a house situated on the way towards Moza Kheri Arya Nagar to Nai Abadi, where they found the present petitioner along with the co-accused persons loading sacks/bags containing contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 201 kgs. in a Maruti Brezza Car.

¶21

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶22

Learned counsel submitted that co-accused- Narayan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3399/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024.

¶23

Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the Investigating Officer- Kapil Patidar C.I. (PW-1) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court on 29.01.2024. The Investigating Officer during his court statements has stated that during the course of investigation, nothing has come on record to indicate that the petitioner had played any role either in sale or purchase of the recovered contraband. The Investigating Officer in his Court statements had further stated that there is no evidence available on record to indicate that the petitioner was neither in ownership nor possession over the house from which the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was recovered.

¶24

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons is 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-petitioner.

[CRLMB-2510/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:22293]

(3 of 4)

Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner petitioner was engaged in loading few sacks/bags in a four wheeler vehicle at the time, when contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was recovered by the police party. The petitioner was arrested from the spot.

¶29

Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the seriousness of accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused- Narayan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2024.

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the Court statements of the Investigating Officer- Kapil Patidar C.I. (PW-1), this Court prima facie finds that the Investigating Officer during his Court statements has clearly stated that during the course of investigation, nothing has come on record to establish that the petitioner had any knowledge in connection to sale and purchase of the contraband or was having exclusive ownership or possession over the house from where the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was recovered. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarge on bail.

¶31

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-2510/2024]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:22293]

¶33

In the considered opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶34

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Subhash S/o Moti Lal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.259/2022, registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, 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 date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

9-himanshu/-

Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash 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

Kritri Patrick Vs State

Shanti Kanwar Vs State

Shri Karan Singh Urf Madhav Singh Vs State

Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheshyam Menariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan