Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2387 (RAJ)

ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH PP

2019-09-05

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.173/2018 of Police Station Sri Karanpur District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22, 8/29 of NDPS Act and under Section 8[C]/27[B][ii] Drugs & Cosmetics Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, huge quantity of tablets, capsules and cough syrups containing narcotic substance were recovered by the police from the possession of co-accused Sonu Sethi. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, police had recovered two slips/receipts, wherein some account of sale and purchase of drugs has been scribed. It is alleged by the police that one of the slips was written by the petitioner whereas, another slip was written by co-accused Radha Kishan. It is submitted that police had concluded that huge quantity of narcotic contraband recovered from Sonu Sethi was supplied to him by the petitioner and co-accused Radha Kishan. 4. It is submitted that now the statements of Investigating Officer PW-1 Vedprakash Lakhotiya have been recorded before the trial court, wherein he has specifically stated that the interrogation note of co-accused Sonu Sethi is not available on record in which he had informed the police that he had procured the narcotic contraband from the petitioner and co-accused Radha Kishan. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer that the script on the slips was not sent to the hand writing expert to verify that the same is of the petitioner or not. It is submitted that in the absence of any proof that the slips allegedly containing some account of sale and purchase of drugs recovered from the co-accused Sonu Sethi was written by the petitioner, it is clear that no evidence exists against the petitioner which can prove the guilt of him for the offence for which he has been charged. It is also submitted that co-accused Radha Kishan has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 6. It is also submitted that co-accused Radha Kishan has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court. 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. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Anil Kumar S/o Shri Somnath shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 173/2018 of Police Station Sri Karanpur District Sriganganagar 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.