Allowed

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLMB/3994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications for two accused arrested under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act in FIR No.104/2023 after recovery of 60 kg 700 gm poppy straw from co-accused Dungar Ram. Court noted both petitioners were implicated only through disclosure statements and enlarged them on bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24704]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13728/2023

¶4

Kumbha Ram S/o Sh. Ghewar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/oLavera Khurd, P.s. Khedapa District Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Nema Ram S/o Bhanwara Ram, R/o- Kuchera, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3994/2024 Dinesh S/o Heera Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Pato Ki Basani, Ps Khedapa, Dist Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepKumar Shah
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary,PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶18

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

¶19

Order

¶20

29/05/2024

¶21

The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.104/2023 registered at

[2024:RJ-JD:24704]

[CRLMB-13728/2023]

(2 of 3)

Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the recovered quantity of contraband article containing 60 Kg 700 gm of Poppy Straw was effected from other co-accused Dungar Ram and Dungar Ram, at the first instance has stated that he has kept the contraband article in the said hotel. He further submits that the petitioner Kumbha Ram has been later on implicated solely on the disclosure statement of co-accused Dungar Ram. Apart from that, there is no other substantive evidence against the petitioner Kumbha Ram alleging his involvement in the alleged crime. Similarly, the other petitioner Dinesh has been implicated on the disclosure statement of petitioner Kumbha Ram. The petitioners are in custody since long and trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail applications may be allowed.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail applications and contends that petitioner Kumbha Ram is the owner of the said hotel from where, the recovery was effected from the possession of the other co-accused Dungar Ram. The other co-accused Dungar Ram, in his disclosure statement has disclosed the name of the petitioner. There is direct connectivity between Kumbha Ram and other co-accused Dungar Ram through mobile calls, therefore, considering the commercial quantity recovered from the co-accused Dungar Ram, the bail applications of accused-petitioners may be dismissed.

[2024:RJ-JD:24704]

[CRLMB-13728/2023]

(3 of 3)

Heard and perused the charge-sheet.

¶32

Admittedly, the recovery of contraband article containing 60 Kg 700 gm of Poppy Straw was effected from the other coaccused Dungar Ram. The Seizure Officer in the FIR has categorically stated that Dungar Ram admitted the fact that he was operating the said hotel. The petitioner Kumbha Ram has been alleged under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act, on the disclosure statement of other co-accused Dungar Ram, similarly, petitioner Dinesh has been involved on the disclosure statement of the other co-accused Dungar Ram. At this juncture, it is not desirable for this Court to express anything on the merits of the case and considering the above facts, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶33

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely:

¶34

1. Kumbha Ram S/o Sh. Ghewar Ram & 2. Dinesh S/o Heera Ram in connection with FIR No.104/2023 registered at Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur Rural shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶35

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶36

Keshav/11-12

Dinesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh 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

Daya Kishan Sharma S/O Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Jain Son of Shri Prakash Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahjad Husain S/O Mehrab Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandraprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sita Ram Vs State of Rajasthan