Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 72 (RAJ)

Mushtaq v. State of Rajasthan

2017-01-05

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. This bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused petitioner Mushtaq in FIR No. 137/2016, Police Station- Gogamedi registered for the offences punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in the case simply on the statement of accused Imran who has stated that he was going to deliver 50 gms. of opium recovered from his possession to present petitioner Mushtaq. Learned counsel submits on the basis of the statement of co-accused present petitioner ought not to have been involved in the matter, and the quantity recovered from the accused petitioner is smaller than the commercial quantity. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. 4. Having taken into consideration the facts mentioned above as also the fact that the allegations against the present petitioner is only based upon the statement given by the co-accused, this Court is inclined to grant this anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Mushtaq s/o Mausam Ali in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2016, Police Station- Gogamedi, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.