Allowed

Sharavan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2024CRLMB/4060/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of an accused alleged to have procured poppy husk. Finding that contraband was not in his conscious possession and he had no criminal record, the court granted bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21368]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4060/2024

¶4

Sharavan Ram S/o Devaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Godaro Ki Dhaniya, Vinayakpura, P.S. Karwad, Dist. Jodhpur East (Raj.) (At Present Incarcerated In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Vinod Kumar Sharma
	Mr.	DilipKumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mohd. Javed Gauri,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶11

13/05/2024

¶12

This 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.233/2023, registered at Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur City East, for the offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

¶13

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

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 172.70 kgs. was recovered in 9 sacks from a house belonging to co-accused- Bhaga Ram. The co-accusedBhaga Ram in his disclosure statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, stated that he had procured the

[2024:RJ-JD:21368]

[CRLMB-4060/2024]

(2 of 3)

recovered contraband from the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the contraband (poppy husk/straw) recovered in the present case, was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case, solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused- Bagha Ram.

¶20

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the investigation against the present petitioner has already been completed; the present petitioner 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.

¶21

Per Contra learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused- Bhaga Ram; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents, the investigation against the present petitioner has already been completed and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner involving himself in

[CRLMB-4060/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:21368]

(3 of 3)

a case of similar nature or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sharavan Ram S/o Devaram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.233/2023, registered at Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur City East, 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.

¶28

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶29

13-himanshu/-

Sharavan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharavan Ram 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

Ravindra @ Ravi Vs State of Rajasthan

Angrej Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan

Premlata Vs Arun Kumar

Bhaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan