Allowed

Ratan Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/733/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court granted bail in a narcotics prosecution case. The court found the co-accused's disclosure statements self-contradictory and unsigned, and noted the petitioner had no connection with the recovery. The court prima facie held Section 37 of the NDPS Act satisfied.

What did the court decide?

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

Ratan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11622]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 733/2024

¶4

Ratan Gurjar S/o Choturam Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gotedi, Ps Kuchera, Dist. Nagaur, (Lodged In Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi Mr. Ram Prakash Dudi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Sharma,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

07/03/2024

¶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.176/2023 registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, psychotropic substance viz 2000 Tramadol tablets and 1500 Alprazolam tablets weighing 632 gms. and 150 gms. respectively was recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner.

¶14

Drawing attention of the Court towards the disclosure statements of co-accused Hardeep Singh recorded under Section

¶15

[CRLMB-733/2024]

¶16

[2024:RJ-JD:11622] (2 of 4)

¶17

67 of the NDPS ACt, learned counsel submitted that on 25.06.2023, co-accused Hardeep Singh, in his statements, divulged the information that his brother namely Jagmeet Singh @ Jagjeet Singh had procured the recovered contraband from some persons and thereafter, handed it over to him. On 27.06.2023, in an another information supplied by co-accused Hardeep Singh under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, he had identified the medical shop owned by the petitioner as a place from where, the psychotropic substance was procured.

¶18

Learned counsel submitted that statements of co-accused Hardeep Singh are not only self-contradictory as, at the one hand, he is saying that psychotropic substance was handed over to him by his brother and on the other hand, he had identified the place from where the psychotropic substance was alleged procured.

¶19

Learned counsel submitted that the disclosure statements of co-accused Hardeep Singh do not inspire confidence as the disclosure statements do not bear his signatures or thumb impression.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that neither any recovery of psychotropic substance has been effected from the present petitioner nor is he having any connection with the recovery of contraband.

¶21

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody, challan has already been filed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

[2024:RJ-JD:11622]

[CRLMB-733/2024]

(3 of 4)

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Hardeep Singh, call details between the present petitioner and co-accused are also available on record indicating his involvement in commission of alleged crime. He thus prayed that the present bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

In arguendo , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that call details between two known persons sans transcripts cannot be considered as credible evidence to show the connectivity between them.

¶27

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds sufficient force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the information divulged by co-accused Hardeep Singh before investigating agency on 25.06.2023 and 27.06.2023 are selfcontradictory. It is also surprising that disclosure statements of coaccused do not bear his signature or thumb impression. This Court also prima facie finds that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner and he does not have any criminal antecedents.

¶28

In the opinion of this Court, the conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case.

¶29

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶30

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ratan Gurjar

¶31

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-733/2024]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:11622]

¶33

S/o Choturam Gurjar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.176/2023 registered at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan, District Sriganganagar, 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.

¶34

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶35

11-Tikam/-

Ratan Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Gurjar 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Bajiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejpal Hudda Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Kumar Mangal Vs State

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan