Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1547 (RAJ)

Sharwan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-18

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No. 515/2019, Police Station Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner stated that the contraband in question (i.e., Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets) were recovered from Ramzan and Bheem; that on the basis of statement of Ramzan and Bheem, the present accused-petitioner was implicated in the present case; that as per conclusion drawn in the charge-sheet, although mobile numbers of the accused-petitioner and the co-accused were mentioned in the charge-sheet but no call detail report was procured/obtained by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation; that even no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was obtained by the Investigating Officer; that except statements of the co-accused persons, there is no evidence against the present accused-petitioner which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime; that as per page number 32 of the charge-sheet, parcel mentioned at serial number 13 sent by the Ramdeen Auto Parts was received by Ramzan; that similarly, the second parcel sent by the same Ramdeen Auto Parts was received by Bheem (thumb impression was present); that as per the statement of Mohamed Asfaq, both the Bilties by which, the parcels were received by Ramzan and Bheem were presented before the Police Officials and the same were included in the FIR No. 515/2019; that apart from the statements of the Ramzan and Bheem, there was no evidence; that the charge-sheet has been filed; and that further trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may kindly be granted to the accused-petitioner. 4. Per contra, in compliance of the Court's earlier order dated 10.08.2021, learned Public Prosecutor stated that as per the CO Diary received by him, there is no call detail report in regard to the accused-petitioner and similarly, there is no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that details of the petitioner's Bank Account is available in the CO Diary and as per the Bank Statement, an amount of Rs.25,000/- each were credited on 21.09.2019 and further an amount of Rs.11,000/- was credited on 26.09.2019. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that details of the petitioner's Bank Account is available in the CO Diary and as per the Bank Statement, an amount of Rs.25,000/- each were credited on 21.09.2019 and further an amount of Rs.11,000/- was credited on 26.09.2019. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed that considering the above suspicious transactions in the bank account of the accused-petitioner, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is not mentioned in the above mentioned Bank Statement that who has deposited these amounts. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that total 25,000 tablets including strips having weight of 14.325 kgs. were recovered from the co-accused persons, Ramzan and Bheem on 28.09.2019, that as per the statements of these co-accused persons, the contraband in question was supplied by the accused-petitioner; that during the course of investigation, evidence in regard to the aforesaid deposition of the money on different dates in the Bank Account of the accused-petitioner, much prior to recovery/seizure of the contraband in question, was procured by the Investigating Officer and the same is available in the CO Diary, therefore, in my humble opinion, it cannot be said that in the present case, apart from the statements of the co-accused persons, there is no direct evidence which could connect the accused-petitioner with the alleged crime and, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant benefit of bail in favour of the accused-petitioner before recording the statement of the Investigating Officer. 7. Accordingly and in view of the observations made hereinabove, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, Sharwan Kumar S/o Hanuman, is dismissed. 8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh bail application after recording of the statement of the Investigating Officer.