Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2799 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-11-06

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 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. 180/2018 of Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, co-accused Shrawan was apprehended by the police while transporting huge quantity of poppy straw in a car. It is submitted that co-accused Shrawan, while in police custody, gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act to the police that he procured the said narcotic contraband at the instruction of the petitioner. It is submitted that the police have thereafter arrested the petitioner and filed charge-sheet against him for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, the police collected the call details of several phone numbers and also recorded information of co-accused Shrawan, wherein he has identified the house of the petitioner and on the basis of the said evidence, the police have concluded that the petitioner was involved in commission of crime. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that now the statements of Investigating Officer - Mr. Gautam Jain have been recorded before the trial court as PW-9, wherein in his cross-examination, he has submitted that there is no evidence of this effect available on record that the phone numbers of which the call details have been placed on record, belongs to the petitioner. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer PW-9 has also specifically stated that at the time of identification of the house of the petitioner by co-accused Shrawan, he did not record the statements of Patwari, Gram Sewak and neighbours to ascertain that the said house belongs to the petitioner. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has also admitted that except the information given by co-accused Shrawan, while in police custody, no independent evidence was collected by him to ascertain that the petitioner had supplied the narcotic contraband to co-accused Shrawan. It is further argued that the Investigating Officer has also admitted that except the information given by co-accused Shrawan, while in police custody, no independent evidence was collected by him to ascertain that the petitioner had supplied the narcotic contraband to co-accused Shrawan. It is submitted that except the information given by co-accused Shrawan, no credible or reliable evidence is available against the petitioner on record and it is well settled that any information given by the co-accused persons in police custody is not admissible in evidence. 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 third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Om Prakash S/o. Bija Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 180/2018 of Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur 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.