Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 921 (RAJ)

Puran v. State of Rajasthan

2005-03-28

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material/case diary made available to me during' the arguments of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has challenged the order framing charge against him under Section 8/15 of the N.D.PS. Act before this Court in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 211/2005 wherein while admitting the revision petition this Court has stayed the further proceedings before the trial Court against the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the bail should be granted to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He has referred a case of Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1993(1) RLR 335 on the principle that inconsistent, different or contrary orders should not be passed. He has also referred a case of Kapil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 882/2005 decided on 22nd February 2005 . 3. In the present case 120 bags of poppy-straw and 50 Bags of 'white-powder' were recovered from the truck, the total weight was 4,800 kilo grams. The investigating agency after collecting evidence filed a charge-sheet in the matter against the petitioner. The learned trial Court has prima facie framed charge against the petitioner under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The revisional Court has admitted the revision petition for hearing and has stayed the further proceedings against petitioner. The revisional Court has not stayed the operation of order framing charge. The revision petition is pending for hearing. 4. The order staying further proceedings in revision petition has been passed at the request of the petitioner. The jurisdiction of the revisional Court against an order framing charge is altogether different than the jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while granting bail to the accused persons. This is a case relating to N.D.PS. Act, 1985, wherein there is specific bar under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 37 to the effect that no person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 37 it has been made clear that limitation on granting bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 37 it has been made clear that limitation on granting bail specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act provides minimum sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment, which may extend to 20 years, where contravention involves commercial quantity. 5. In the present case there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and challan has already been filed. The trial Court has also framed the charge. The present application is under Section 439 Cr.PC. therefore the above referred two judgments by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in any manner. The gravity of an offence is always a relevant factor while considering the bail application of the accused. 6. In view of the quantity of the contraband item recovered in the present case, which is more than commercial quantity I do not find this case to be fit one to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.PC. 7. The petitioner has now made one more submission that co-accused Bhagwat Singh has been granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. I have gone through the order dated 2.12.2004 granting bail to the co-accused Bhagwat Singh. So far as co-accused Bhagwat Singh is concerned the coordinate bench of this Court has observed that he was not the owner of the truck in which the contraband poppy-straw/husk was being transported. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co- accused. The driving licence of the accused-petitioner was recovered from the truck. 8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find this case to be fit one to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The bail application is accordingly dismissed. *******