Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1381 (RAJ)

Santosh v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-05-06

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 connection with FIR No. 264/2018 of Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 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 as per prosecution story, the police had recovered 105.100 kgs of poppy straw from co-accused Prahlad which he was transporting in a vehicle. At the time of his arrest, the co-accused Prahlad gave information that said narcotic contraband was procured by him from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that police have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act while concluding that co-accused Prahlad had procured narcotic contraband from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of Investigating Officer Narayan (PW-1) have now been recorded before the trial court wherein he has specifically admitted that except the information given by the co-accused Prahalad, while in police custody, that he procured the narcotic contraband from the petitioner, no other evidence in relation to connection of the petitioner with co-accused Prahlad was collected by the police during police investigation. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer PW-1 that the petitioner did not give any information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act after his arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when there is specific admission of the Investigating Officer to this effect that no evidence is available on record which establishes the connection of the petitioner with co-accused Prahlad from whom, narcotic contraband was recovered, it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration specific admission of the Investigating Officer PW-1 in which he has admitted that no evidence of connecting the petitioner with the co-accused is available on record except the information supplied by the co-accused Prahlad in police custody, 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. 6. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Santosh S/o Bhanwar Lal Dhakad shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 264/2018 of Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh 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.