Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1031 (RAJ)

Madanlal v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-04-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 70/2018 of Police Station Ghantali for the offences punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he had supplied 60 kgs. of poppy husk to co-accused Raju. It is submitted that initially the petitioner was not named anywhere in the FIR, seizure memo and in the statements of witnesses. It is submitted that after his arrest, co-accused Radhey Shyam gave an information (Exhibit-P/3) under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which, he has disclosed the name of some other persons and place from where he had allegedly procured narcotic contraband. However, when the police took Radhey Shyam to said place, he refused to divulge anything and then the police brought him back. Later on, another information was obtained from co accused Radhey Shyam, in which, he named the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that now the statement of Investigating Officer Surendra Solanki has been recorded as PW-1 before the trial court, where in his cross-examination, he has admitted that co-accused Radhey Shyam did not give any information that he procured narcotic contraband from the petitioner. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that the information given by co-accused Radhey Shyam (Exhibit-P/3 and P/4) does not disclose that at which city, village or colony, the petitioner had handed over the narcotic contraband to him. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer has also admitted that no independent witness has given statement of this effect that he had ever seen the petitioner meeting with co-accused Radhey Shyam or supplying the narcotic contraband to him. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer in his statement has also admitted that the Seizure Officer, in his police statement has admitted that he had not taken out samples from all the three bags, containing poppy husk but taken out only one sample after mixing the recovered narcotic contraband. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer in his statement has also admitted that the Seizure Officer, in his police statement has admitted that he had not taken out samples from all the three bags, containing poppy husk but taken out only one sample after mixing the recovered narcotic contraband. It is submitted that from the above piece of evidence, it is also clear that the Seizure Officer did not follow the procedure of taking out sample of narcotic contraband as required under the law as per the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Netram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 wherein it has been held that the accused persons in the matter can be held guilty for possessing narcotic contraband below commercial quantity. It is therefore prayed that when no admissible evidence has been collected by the police to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and there are also some discrepancies in collection of samples by the Seizure Officer, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Madanlal S/o Sh. Chenram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 70/2018 of Police Station Ghantali provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.