Allowed

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2024CRLMB/647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case, noting the petitioner was falsely implicated via co-accused statements with no recovery. Relied on Tofan Singh, directing release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad Vs State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:3565]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 647/2024

¶4

Sagarmal Dhakad S/o Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mahupura Puran, Police Station Singoli, District Neemuch (M.p.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

22/01/2024

¶13

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.227/2023 registered at Police Station Kekri City, District Ajmer for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, the police filed the charge-sheet in this matter for the offence under Sections 8, 15, 29 & 25 of NDPS Act.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. She submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of co-accused. No recovery has been affected from the possession of the petitioner. She further submits that interrogation of the co-accused cannot be used against the petitioner as the same is inadmissible in evidence in view of provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. She submits that one

[2024:RJ-JP:3565]

[CRLMB-647/2024]

(2 of 3)

other case has also been registered against the petitioner, wherein no recovery has been made from the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since date of his arrest charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and trial of the case will take considerable time. She also contends that further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that 57 kgs of poppy husk has been recovered in this case, which is commercial quantity, thus, keeping in view Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of co-accused, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and looking to the custody period of the petitioner; and so also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra), but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Sagarmal Dhakad S/o Nandram @

[2024:RJ-JP:3565]

[CRLMB-647/2024]

(3 of 3)

Nandlal Dhakad 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.

¶27

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency 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 petitioner by this Court.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

16-Nirmala

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu S/O Haricharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramprasad @ Rp S/O Late Lahariram Jogi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anar Singh S/O Ramesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar S/O Shri Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chand Bhawaria S/O Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sahid S/O Azad Vs State of Rajasthan