Allowed

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2024CRLMB/4025/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused in an NDPS case (Sections 8/22/29) where evidence was limited to disclosure statements from co-accused. Noting imprisonment of over three years and lack of corroborative evidence, the Court held the mandatory non-bail rule inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:163]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III^rd Bail Application No. 4025/2023

¶4

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan S/o Sh. Pyare Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Bijrasar, P.s. Bhanipura, Teh. Sardarshahar, Dist. Churu. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
State Of Rajasthan,	Through PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. B.R. Bishnoi Mr. Saddam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary,PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶8

Order

¶9

03/01/2024

¶10

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶11

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	243/2020
2.	Concerned Police Station	Suratgarh City
3.	District	Shri Ganganagar
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added, if any	Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	15.02.2023

¶12

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:163]

[CRLMB-4025/2023]

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶17

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as perused the challan papers and the statement of Investigating Officer recorded during trial.

¶19

It is the case of the prosecution that a motor cycle was intercepted by the police and certain quantity of contraband tablets got recovered from accused persons Sita Ram and Surendra. Upon interrogation, it was disclosed by the aforementioned two accused persons that the contraband was procured to them by the present petitioner, except the disclosure statements made to a Police Officer while in police custody, there is no other evidence viz. call details, tower location or any other incriminating evidence. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-1) Pawan Kumar admitted in his cross-examination that except the disclosure statements and the confession of the petitioner, there is no other connecting evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged recovery. The petitioner is behind the bars since more than three and a half years. In the given circumstances, the fetter contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply. There is

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:163]

[CRLMB-4025/2023]

high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶26

40-divya/-

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyonarayan @ Shivnarayan 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

Pushpa Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Manju Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirbhay Singh Vs State

Idrish @ Bhuria Vs State

Nisar Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan