Allowed

Shyam Singh S/O Kalu Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2024CRLMB/7425/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons facing charges under the NDPS Act. Implicated only through the statement of a co-accused and held in custody for six months without recovery of evidence from them, the court deemed it just to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioners released on bail through personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Shyam Singh S/O Kalu Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50363]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7425/2024

¶4

Shyam Singh S/o Kalu Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/oGuradiya Kalan, Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Accused Presently Confined In Sub Jail- Bhawani Mandi)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7873/2024

¶11

Dhani Singh Padihar S/o Sodansingh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 62, Gram Khai Kheda Para Post Ankali Deewan, Police Station Shamgarh District Mandsaur (M.p.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bhawnimandi District Jhalawar).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶18

Order

¶19

06/12/2024

¶20

The accused-petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.63/2024 registered with the Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar for offence under Sections 8, 15 & 29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶21

Counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the

[2024:RJ-JP:50363]

[CRLMB-7425/2024]

(2 of 3)

accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of statement of co-accused Binder Singh, which is not admissible against the present petitioners so as to warrant their conviction. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioners are in custody for last six months and the Police after completion of investigation has submitted chargesheet in the matter. Counsel also submits that trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude because the trial is not yet commenced, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the accused-petitioners and submits that co-accused- Binder Singh has stated during interrogation that the present accusedpetitioners used to purchase the contraband from him.

¶27

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the case diary.

¶28

The alleged contraband that is Doda Chura/Poppy Husk (138kg and 699GM) is said to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused- Binder Singh and the present accusedpetitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused- Binder Singh, wherein he has stated that the present accused-petitioners used to purchase the contraband from him.

¶29

Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the present accused-petitioners and the fact that no contraband has

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:50363]

[CRLMB-7425/2024]

been recovered from the possession of present accusedpetitioners, the accused-petitioners are in custody for last six months and they were implicated in this matter only on the basis of statement of co-accused- Binder Singh, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶34

These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶35

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected file.

¶36

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶37

ARTI SHARMA /57-58

Shyam Singh S/O Kalu Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Singh S/O Kalu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibrant Academy 1 Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bharosilal Son of Parsadi Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj Son of Shivram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Gurjar S/O Shri Laxman Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hukam Singh Vs State

Jahul Khan S/O Karim, Vs State of Rajasthan