Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 551 (RAJ)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-15

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. 42/2017 of Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, 93 kgs. of poppy straw was recovered from Innova Crysta on 01.10.2017. It is alleged that when the police intercepted the vehicle, in which the narcotic contraband was being transported, the driver of the said vehicle ran away from the scene of crime, however, later on, police identified him as Peera Ram @ Pradeep S/o Pema Ram and arrested him, who gave information to the police that the narcotic contraband recovered by the police was supplied to him by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police have arrested the petitioner simply on the basis of information given by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep and the charge-sheet has also been filed against him solely on the basis of said information. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except this evidence no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner and the same can be verified from the statements of Investigating Officer - Suresh Saran (PW-1), who in his court statements recorded on 29.01.2019, has also specifically stated that except the information supplied by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep no other evidence is available against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the information supplied by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep in police custody, is not admissible in evidence, hence, it is clear that the prosecution cannot be able to prove the guilt of petitioner in the trial pending against him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the information supplied by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep in police custody, is not admissible in evidence, hence, it is clear that the prosecution cannot be able to prove the guilt of petitioner in the trial pending against him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the charge-sheet as well as the statements given by Investigating Officere - Suresh Saran (PW-1) that except the information given by co-accused Peera Ram @ Pradeep no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner, 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 second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Mukesh Kumar S/o Saradh Das shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 42/2017 of Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer 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.