Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 316 (RAJ)

Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-24

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 2. Shri Devendra Singh, I.O. who investigated the matter at the relevant point of time, is present in Court pursuant to the directions given on 22.2.2016. 3. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2013, Police Station Nana, District Pali for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recovery of contraband in the case at hand was made by the officers of the P.S. Nana, District Pali on 11.2.2013 from a Scorpio vehicle which was lying in an abandoned condition in the Jungle. Nobody was seen in or around the vehicle. He submits that the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the offending Scorpio vehicle. The Investigating Officer, in order to cover up his failure to arrest the actual accused, falsely implicated the petitioner in this case and arrested him without any evidence. He submits that thereafter the charge-sheet has been filed without there being any evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He urges that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation recorded the interrogation note of the accused in which he admitted his complicity in the crime. He urges that the call details of the accused were also collected which indicate that the accused was indulged in illegal smuggling of poppy straw. 6. On a query being raised, the Investigating Officer admitted that the mobile sim of which the call details were collected, does not stand in the name of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that other than the interrogation note of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer, there is no independent evidence so as to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of recovery. He was arrested in this case on 21.6.2015 i.e. after more than 2 years 3 months of the recovery. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the time of recovery. He was arrested in this case on 21.6.2015 i.e. after more than 2 years 3 months of the recovery. It cannot be gainsaid that the interrogation note of an accused recorded by a police officer would be inadmissible in evidence as the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Admittedly, no witness was examined during investigation to connect the petitioner with the Scorpio vehicle from which the recovery was effected. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied and the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwara Ram arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.27/2013, Police Station Nana, District Pali, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.80,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.