Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 917 (RAJ)

Bhoma Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2019-03-26

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

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. 165/2018 of Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in connection with the present FIR, the petitioners have been arrested on 07.04.2018 and charge sheet against them was filed on 29.09.2018. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the present case, the contraband, poppy straw weighing 71 kgs. 600 gms. has been alleged to be recovered from the petitioner, and on equal bifurcation of the said contraband, among the petitioners, only 35 kgs. 800 gms. poppy straw come to the share of each petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, submitted that since the quantity of poppy straw i.e. 35 kgs. 800 gms. is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Netram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163 has argued that this Court has held that if the samples from each bag containing poppy husk/poppy straw have not been collected and test by U.N. Kit has not been conducted on each bag and if the Seizure Officer has taken out some quantity of narcotic drug from each bag and after mixing the same has taken out some portion for sample, then, the same is not in conformity with the Standing Instruction No. 1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, particularly, Instruction No. 1.7 and, as such, it cannot be said that the narcotic contraband recovered in the matter is of commercial quantity or above. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor has however, submitted that the present petitioners have no criminal antecedents of like nature as against them. 7. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor has however, submitted that the present petitioners have no criminal antecedents of like nature as against them. 7. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, substantial grounds taken in this bail application, taking into consideration the judgment passed by this Court in Netrams case (supra) and keeping in view the fact that trial of the case is likely to take time, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Bhoma Ram S/o Ganga Ram and (2) Pepa Ram S/o Deva Ram, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 165/2018 of Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh provided each of them execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.