Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1343 (RAJ)

JAMNA LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-05-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
ORDER : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2012, registered at Police Station Dangiawas, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, a source information was received that Dheema Ram son of Peeraram, resident of Jaleli Fozdara and the petitioner were indulged in illicit trade of opium and poppy straw and that they were about to procure a huge consignment of illicit opium for supplying the same to various customers in a Pajero vehicle No.RJ-14-UA-2431. The information was considered to be reliable and thus was taken down in writing and a raid party of the officials of P.S. Dangiyawas was formed. It is alleged that on 15.07.2012, at about 12.25 am. the police party reached the dhani of Dheema Ram. The SHO and his companions entered the dhani after opening its gate and saw that a Pajero vehicle No. No.RJ-14-UA-2431 was being driven out. On seeing the police party, one person got down from the Pajero vehicle and threw down a plastic bag and ran away. The car was apprehended and the person sitting on the driver seat disclosed his name to be Ratanlal. After due formalities, the SHO proceeded to search the Pajero vehicle from which, 30 Kgs. of opium milk, a 12 bore gun double barrel and cartridges were recovered. Ratanlal, on inquiry, immediately disclosed that the person who had ran after throwing down the plastic bag was none other than the present petitioner Jamna Lal. The plastic bag thrown by the petitioner was searched and 10 Kgs. opium was recovered from it. After initial investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Ratanlal while keeping the investigation pending against the present petitioner and Dheema Ram. Dheema Ram was arrested in the year 2013. The police could finally lay hands on the petitioner Jamna Lal and he was arrested on 31.12.2013. Since then, he is in custody and has approached this Court by way of this application for bail preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 4. Shri Kailash Khileri, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that there is no evidence worth the name on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Since then, he is in custody and has approached this Court by way of this application for bail preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 4. Shri Kailash Khileri, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that there is no evidence worth the name on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. He contended that the sole evidence on which prosecution relies upon to prosecute the petitioner is the confessional statement of the co-accused Ratanlal which is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. He further contended that Dheema Ram has been enlarged on bail and, therefore, the petitioner too deserves the same indulgence. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and contended that the petitioner is involved in more than one case under the NDPS Act. Apart from the case at hand, he is also being tried in two more cases under the NDPS Act both registered after the present case. He further urged that when the initial investigation was done from Ratanlal, he was not an accused because by that time, neither he was arrested nor was the FIR registered and thus, the information given by Ratanlal is admissible and relevant for proceeding against the accused named by him. He thus craves rejection of the petitioner's bail application urging that there is ample material on record to connect him with the huge quantity of opium recovered in the case at hand. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the record. 7. Though it is true that in normal course, the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded by a police officer may not be treated relevant for proceeding against any other accused but in the case at hand, the petitioner was named by Ratanlal right at the time of initial questioning. By that time, no recovery had been effected, he had not been arrested and even the FIR had not been registered. Thus, the prosecution is indeed entitled to claim that the information provided by Ratanlal holds some weight age. The conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him to be released on bail because after the recovery having been effected in the case, the petitioner has again been found involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. 8. Thus, the prosecution is indeed entitled to claim that the information provided by Ratanlal holds some weight age. The conduct of the petitioner also disentitles him to be released on bail because after the recovery having been effected in the case, the petitioner has again been found involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act. 8. In this background, this Court is not convinced by the argument advanced by Shri Khilery that the restrictions contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act do not operate against the petitioner. Looking to the huge quantity of opium recovered in the instant case and the significant evidence available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the recovered opium and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail at this stage. 9. Thus, the instant application for bail preferred on behalf of the petitioner Jamna Lal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last nearly three years, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to try and complete the same as far as possible within a period of six months from the date of submission of copy of this order.