Allowed

Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2024CRLMB/3399/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with NDPS offences. The court found prima facie that the petitioner was merely a labourer, had no criminal antecedents, and posed no flight risk, satisfying Section 37 NDPS Act conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 259/2022, subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and two sureties.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20792]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3399/2024

¶4

Narayan S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gagsa P.s. Sadar Chittorgarh, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ram Niwas Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vikram Sharma,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

09/05/2024

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.259/2022 registered at Police Station Chhotisadri, District Pratapgarh, for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 3.8.2022, a police team led by SHO/Incharge of Police Station Chhotisadri, District Pratapgarh during routine patrolling, reached near a house situated on the way towards Kheri Arya Nagar to Nai Abadi, where they found the present petitioner alongwith co-accused persons, loading the sacks containing contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 201 kgs. in a Maruti Brezza car.

¶15

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 and on

[2024:RJ-JD:20792]

[CRLMB-3399/2024]

(2 of 4)

the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner was engaged by the co-accused persons as a labourer to load few sacks/bags in a four wheeler vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge that the sacks were containing contraband (poppy husk/straw). Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with commission of the alleged crime.

¶20

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

¶21

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶22

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

¶23

The statements of the Investigating Officer Kapil Patidar C.I. (PW-1) have been recorded before the competent criminal court on 29.1.2024. The Investigating Officer during his court statements has admitted that it has come to surface, during the course of investigation that the petitioner was working as a labourer at the time when contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered in the present case.

¶24

The relevant portion of the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW-1) recorded in his cross-examination is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

¶25

“ ज्ቐ ीअधि�कारीनेनारायणकोईभीमादकपदा्ቕ�उठाकरलेजातेहुए, भरतेहुएयाक‌्ሾापकड़ेहुएपकड़ाहो, ऐसाज्ቐ ीअधि�कारीनेनहींबताया। काकाम नारायणहरिररामधिपताउदयलालगाडरीकेयहांबं�ुआमजदूर (हाली) करता्ቕ ा, ऐसामेरीतफ्‌तीशमेंआया्ቕ ा।यहसहीहैधिकज्ቐ ीअधि�कारीके अनुसारनारायणमादकपदा्ቕ�कीगाड़ीकोभरकरउसेचलानेवालाहोऐसानही ा आया।अधिभयु्ሹ नारायणपरज्ቐ ीअधि�कारीनेए्ቍ ॉधि56गकाआरोपमाना्ቕ

[CRLMB-3399/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:20792]

(3 of 4)

औरमैं न भीअनुसं�ानमेंउसकेधिवरु्ቍ ए्ቍ ॉधि5ंगकाअपरा�माना।आरोपी नारायणकेधिवरू्ቍ अ्቗ कोईआपराधि�क्ቚ करणलቚኌ@तनहीहोनाआरोपप्ቔ मेंआयाहै। हरिररामऔरनारायणकोआपसमेंकभीभीमादकपदा्ቕ�कीखरीदफरो्ሺ कीबातकरतेहुए, लेन-देनकरतेहुएधिकसीभीसा्ቌीनेमुझेनही बताया।”

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the statements of Investigating Officer (PW-1), this Court prima facie finds that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only engaged as a labourer by the co-accused persons cannot be brushed aside at this stage. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. This Court also prima facie finds that 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 enlarged on bail by this Court. The twin conditions enumerated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are therefore, duly satisfied. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Narayan S/o Ram Lal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.259/2022 registered at Police Station Chhotisadri, District Pratapgarh, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3399/2024]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JD:20792]

¶34

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.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

8-TarunGoyal/-

Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan 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

Mahendra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajudevi Vs State and Anr.

Shanti Lal Vs State

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan

Anuj Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan