Allowed

Manish @ Mani S/O Shri Lalaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CRLMB/494/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench allowed second bail application of accused accused of drug offences citing procedural violations during sampling and inventory as key considerations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail requiring personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, with conditions including monthly police marking.

Manish @ Mani S/O Shri Lalaram Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5686]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 494/2024

¶4

Manish @ Mani S/o Shri Lalaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Raiger Mohalla, Jamwaramgarh, Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

02/02/2024

¶13

This second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.40/2023 registered at Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rural) for offence under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of NDPS Act.

¶14

The first bail application (No.10729/2023) of the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2023 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording statement of the seizure officer. The statement of the said witness has been recorded at trial. Hence, this second bail application.

[2024:RJ-JP:5686]

[CRLMB-494/2024]

(2 of 4)

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that work of drawing sample was not done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argues that the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-compliance of this provision of law. He further argued that inventory report of this case has been prepared on 17.03.2023 after one month of the alleged recovery and for this inordinate delay in preparing the inventory report, no explanation has been given by the investigating agency. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr : (2016) 3 SCC 3749 and (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 SCC online SC 862.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act has also not been followed in the instant case. Apart from that, it is argued that no independent witness was associated during the seizure proceedings. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. After investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet in the matter and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He thus, prays that the instant application for bail may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on bail.

[2024:RJ-JP:5686]

[CRLMB-494/2024]

(3 of 4)

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application. He submits that contrand 240 strips of Tramadol Capsules weighing 795.7 grams and 70 strips of Alprazolam Tablets (11 strips of 0.5mg & 59 strips of 0.25mg) weighing 66.5 grams were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he was arrested on the spot. The quantity of the recovered contraband is above commercial quantity and considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted.

¶24

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶25

As per the prosecution case, prima facie, it appears that the process of drawing samples has not been done in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate which is in violation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Further, there is an inordinate delay of one month in preparing the inventory. The petitioner does not have any similar criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 17.02.2023.

¶26

Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable

[2024:RJ-JP:5686]

[CRLMB-494/2024]

(4 of 4)

reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

¶31

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept the instant bail application.

¶32

Thus, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner – Manish @ Mani S/o Shri Lalaram , arrested in connection with FIR No.40/2023 registered at Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur (Rural) 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.

¶33

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during pendency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is concluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

22-Nirmala

Manish @ Mani S/O Shri Lalaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish @ Mani S/O Shri Lalaram v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kalyan Motors Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajesh Sharma S/O Shri Prabhudayal Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Kumari Khatik D/O Sh. Nangiya Khatik, W/O Rajesh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sakshi Kumbhkar D/O Durga Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Ghisi Bai W/O Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Maya Kholiya D/O Jagdish Narayan Kholiya W/O Krishan Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan