Allowed

Gordhan Singh S/O Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2024CRLMB/685/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an NDPS Act case. The court accepted contentions that the petitioner was falsely implicated based solely on the interrogation of a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner to furnish bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each and comply with conditions including monthly appearance.

Gordhan Singh S/O Man Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6393]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 685/2024

¶4

Gordhan Singh S/o Man Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Thothar, Police Station Badod, District Agar (M.p.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

07/02/2024

¶13

The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.293/2023 registered at Police Station Gangdhar, District Jhalawar for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner has been roped in this case solely on the basis of the interrogation of co-accused, who was found in possession of 7.300 kg of poppy husk (doda chura) and he has been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that no other case of similar nature has been registered against the petitioner. He also 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. Learned

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6393]

[CRLMB-685/2024]

counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T

¶19

Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶21

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the facts that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused - Satyanarayan, who was found in possession of contraband and he has already been granted regular bail by this Court, no other case of similar nature has been registered against the petitioner and so also keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Sing

(supra), but without expressing any opinion on the

¶29

merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶30

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Gangdhar, District Jhalawar in FIR No.293/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner – Gordhan Singh S/o Man Singh , he shall be

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6393]

[CRLMB-685/2024]

released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶36

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶37

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶38

(iv) it is also directed that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during pendency of bail granted by this Court.

¶39

(v) The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is concluded.

¶40

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.

¶41

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶42

59-Nirmala

Gordhan Singh S/O Man Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gordhan Singh S/O Man Singh 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

Bhupendra and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhuvnesh @ Bhuvneshwar Sharma S/O Shri Rajendra Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sagarmal S/O Shri Hanuman Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Devenddra Kumar @ Devo Son of Dungar Singh @ Bajrang Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Butolia Son of Shri Shrei Krishan Butoliya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Raju S/O Shri Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan