Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 38 (RAJ)

Mukesh Menariya v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-01-03

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned PP. 2. Perused the material available on record. This bail application is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the co accused in the same matter have been released on bail by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 3611/2017 ordered on 27.4.2017. The order reads as follows:- These bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 133/2016, registered at Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. Learned Senior counsel Shri Mahesh Bora assisted by Shri M.L. Bishnoi, Shri Vijay Raj Bishnoi and Shri Birbal Saran urge that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Contraband poppy straw weighing 287 Kgs. was recovered from Innova car lying in an abandoned condition at Kankani. It is admitted case of prosecution that none of the petitioners wereever the occupants of the said Innova car. They have been arrested on the charge of conspiring to have the contraband transported. It was contended that petitioners have been implicated in the case on mere conjectures based on mobile call details with an inference being raised by the prosecution that the petitioners other than Smt. Sumata were escorting the said Innova Vehicle. They further urged that the prosecution has cooked up the entire case against the petitioners after discovery of some luxurious items in the house of accused petitioner Smt. Sumata. Thereafter, the police has made it a mission to implicate her and other persons with whom she was in contact with frivolous charges of involvement in trade of narcotics. They contended that, there being no evidence on record to connect the petitioners with the recovered contraband, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by I.O. Shri Anand Singh, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners counsel. It was submitted that the route chart of Innova vehicle from which poppy-straw weighing 287.100 kgs., in excess of commercial quantity, was recovered prepared on the basis of toll booth slips, corresponds in minutest details with the tower locations of the mobile phones held by the petitioners other than Smt. Sumata who in turn was in continuous touch with the other accused. He thus urged that the petitioners were evidently following the Innova vehicle continuously right from Chittorgarh district where the poppy straw was uploaded till the Jodhpur district where it was abondoned and hence the prosecution is justified in drawing inference about the petitioners involvement in conspiracy to transport contraband poppy straw weighing in excess of commercial quantity. He thus, urges that the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the challan papers. Indisputably, the petitioners were not apprehended with the poppy straw recovered from the Innova car on 14.08.2016. The I.O. has concluded that the Innova vehicle was being driven by Raju Rao @ Radheyshyam but even the said conclusion is based on the confessional statement of the accused himself. It ispertinent to note that the as against the petitioners other than Smt. Sumata, the prosecution seeks to draw an inference that since mobile tower locations of the mobile instruments held by the respective accused coincide with the movement of the Innova car, they should be presumed to be the conspirators for transportation of the Poppy straw recovered from the Innova car. The possibility of such a corresponding movement being co-incidental cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may. Since, no recovery of any kind was effected from the possession of any of the petitioners in the case at hand and since trial is likely to consume time; without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, these bail applications filed on behalf of the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners namely, (1) Subhash Gora, (2) Smt. Sumata @ Sunita, (3) Pradeep, (4) Manohar Lal, (5) Shaitan Ram son of Sukhram, (6) Raju Rao (7) Sahiram, (8) Shaitana Ram son of Bhagirath Ram and (9) Prakash arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No. 133/2016, registered at Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 1,00,000/- each and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. While allowing the bail applications, appreciation needs to be expressed to the scientific way of investigation conducted by the I.O. A copy of this order be placed in each file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically argued that the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly reflects that the petitioner has been arrayed as a accused only on the information of Rajurao @ Radheshyam and petitioners role as per information received under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as well as contents of the bail order does not travel beyond the role of Rajurao. 5. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Mukesh Menariya S/o Shri Narain Menariya arrested in connection with FIR No. 133/2016 of Luni Police Station, Distt. Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.