Allowed

Dhannaram Choudhary S/O Shri Heeraram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2024CRLMB/6736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for a petitioner charged under the NDPS Act. Despite the commercial quantity of contraband, bail was granted due to lack of independent witnesses during recovery, no criminal antecedents, and potential delay in trial. A personal bond and sureties were directed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to conditions.

Dhannaram Choudhary S/O Shri Heeraram Choudhary Vs State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:52281]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶4

6736/2024

¶5

Dhannaram Choudhary S/o Shri Heeraram Choudhary, R/o Jajiwal Kheechiya Banar, Police Station Jodhpur City, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (Confined At Central Jail Ajmer).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Wahid Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

16/12/2024

¶14

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.26/2023 registered at Police Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter.

¶15

First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the testimony of the Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer of this case has been examined. Thus, petitioner filed this second bail application.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that

[2024:RJ-JP:52281]

[CRLMB-6736/2024]

(2 of 3)

petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery. Counsel submits that petitioner simply took lift from the accused Leelaram and during this short journey, recovery of contraband was allegedly effected. Counsel submits that petitioner is neither owner of the vehicle nor he was the driver of the vehicle. It is further argued that despite the fact that recovery was effected in the broad daylight, no independent witness was associated during the recovery proceedings. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2023 and till date only five witnesses out of eighteen witnesses have been examined and thus, trial of the case is likely to taken considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was found in the vehicle wherein, contraband was being carried. He further submits that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered and considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

¶22

I have considered the contentions.

¶23

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; no independent witness was associated during the recovery proceedings; there are no criminal antecedent of the petitioner; till date only five witnesses have been examined out of eighteen cited witnesses; petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2023

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:52281]

[CRLMB-6736/2024]

and trial will take time, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶28

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Dhannaram Choudhary S/o Shri Heeraram Choudhary 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.

¶29

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence on first week of every three month in the concerned police station.

¶30

If any breach 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 him by this Court.

¶31

The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

LALIT MOHAN /36

Dhannaram Choudhary S/O Shri Heeraram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhannaram Choudhary S/O Shri Heeraram Choudhary 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

Man Singh S/O Manphool Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Gurjar S/O Shri Devaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar S/O Ghansilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Singh S/O Mal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Heena Wife of Shri Komal Vs State of Rajasthan

Akash S/O Dharampal Vs State of Rajasthan