Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 890 (RAJ)

Manish Kumar v. State, Through PP

2019-03-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 299/2018 of Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 of NDPS Act. They have preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after rejection of the bail application of the petitioners, statement of the Investigating Officer PW-1-Surendra, SHO, Police Station, Suratgarh has been recorded. It is argued that as per the prosecution story, the petitioners had supplied narcotic contraband of commercial quantity, i.e. certain banned drugs and cough syrup to the co-accused persons namely Falak and Ameen. It is argued that as a matter of fact, the police during the course of investigation have failed to collect any evidence proving the link between the petitioners and the co-accused persons Falak and Ameen. It is argued that the police have implicated the petitioners in commission of crime only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused persons and the interrogation note of them. It is submitted that now the Investigating Officer PW-1 in his court statement has also admitted that the petitioners have been included as accused on the basis of the statement of co-accused persons and the interrogation note of them. It is also argued that though the Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that petitioners have linked on the basis of the call details but have specifically stated that the said call detail was not produced before the trial court and are not part of the charge-sheet filed by the police. It is further argued that in view of the fact that the Investigating Officer has admitted that petitioners have been implicated in this case on the basis of the statement of the co accused persons and interrogation note of them, it is clear that no evidence whatsoever admissible under the law is available on record to connect the petitioners with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act is not supported by any evidence, therefore, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. It is further submitted that charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act is not supported by any evidence, therefore, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 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 going through the statement of the Investigating Officer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners Manish Kumar S/o Shri Maniram and Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 299/2018 of Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sri Ganganagar provided each of them 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.