Allowed

Umesh Rathore S/O Shri Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CRLMB/2746/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the second bail application of Umesh Rathore, who was in custody for possession of cough syrup under the NDPS Act. The court noted gaps in the recovery memo and lack of manufacturer investigation, finding no absolute bar under Section 37.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioner Umesh Rathore released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Umesh Rathore S/O Shri Suresh Chand Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:23893]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2746/2024

¶4

Umesh Rathore S/o Shri Suresh Chand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kho Dariba Police Station Tahla, District Alwar, Presently Tenant House No. 23/23 Kaveri Path, Near Kl Saini Stadium, Police Station Mansarover Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Mr. Laxmi Kant Tailor For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

20/05/2024

¶13

This second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.498/2023 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of NDPS Act.

¶14

First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of seizure officer. Seizure officer has been examined as PW-1 during the course of trial. Now, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

[2024:RJ-JP:23893]

[CRLMB-2746/2024]

(2 of 4)

Co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal 2nd Misc. Bail Application No.3855/2024. As per the prosecution case, petitioner was found in possession of 367 bottles of cough syrup (100 ML each). Inviting the attention of this Court towards the memo prepared by drug controller at the place of incident, learned counsel submits that there is no reference with regard to presence of petitioner at the place of incident. Actually, this document was prepared at 12.30 AM on 31.05.2023 but later on, overwriting was made there and it has been mentioned as 1.30 AM. Learned counsel contends that there is no cogent reason available on record suggesting that petitioner was in possession of the premise from where the recovery was effected. It is submitted that prosecution failed to collect the evidence with regard to the fact that who was lastly in lawful possession of the recovered drugs. As it is not a case of prosecution that drugs recovered in this case are spurious . It is contended that it has also been admitted by seizure officer that on very same day, another case was registered in the same police station in respect of the recovery of drugs. Further, the investigation agency has not made any investigation from the manufacture to establish as to how the drugs in question reached to the petitioner.It is submitted that false recovery has been shown from the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 31.05.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to take time.

¶20

Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner was found in possession of 367 bottles of

[2024:RJ-JP:23893]

[CRLMB-2746/2024]

(3 of 4)

cough syrup having quantity (100 ML each), which is commercial quantity and therefore, considering provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

¶25

I have considered the contentions.

¶26

The wording of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in my opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the lacunae pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, memo prepared by the drug controller wherein name of petitioner has not been mentioned as also the fact that no investigation was done from the manufacturer of the cough syrup and the fact that there is no absolute bar imposed under Section 37 of NDPS Act and it is not imperative for the Court to record positive finding that he is not a guilty, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:23893]

[CRLMB-2746/2024]

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Umesh Rathore S/o Shri Suresh Chand, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

CHARU SONI /47

Umesh Rathore S/O Shri Suresh Chand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Rathore S/O Shri Suresh Chand 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

Birdi Chand Saini S/O Shri Ganesh Saini, Vs Rajendra Nagpal S/O Shri Keshwanand Nagpal

Lalit Sharma S/O Deepchand Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chirag Traders Vs Kamal Senetary and Hardware Store

Vikram Singh S/O Rameshwar Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Prakash Saini S/O Ramswaroop Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhajuram Meena S/O Gullaram Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan