Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2160 (RAJ)

Dinesh Kumar Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-17

FARJAND ALI

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 283/2018 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. It is transpired from the record that the first application of the petitioner came to be dismissed on 05.10.2018, thereafter second application was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 07.01.2019. The bail plea of Lalit was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.09.2020 and the second bail application of accused Lalit is pending yet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and falsely been implicated in this matter. He contends that there is no evidence suggesting that petitioner was present in the vehicle at the place where the alleged recovery was made; he asserts that in fact he was faraway from the place of alleged recovery. He is innocent and in custody since 05.09.2018. He further submits that in view of the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding release of accused where the trial has been protracted for a long, the indefinite incarceration of the petitioner would not be justifiable as the same is violative of his fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. He drew attention of this Court towards some order-sheets of the learned trial Court, the last order-sheet dated 10.02.2021 reflects that Presiding Officer was not present and the case was posted for want of prosecution evidence on 07.04.2021. It is prayed that the petitioner may be directed to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail and contended that the petitioner has not placed on record the entire order-sheets so that the progress of the trial could be examined properly. He contends that the Police party on 31.08.2018 intercepted a white Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-09-GB0532 on a highway. Three persons were there in the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by the accused Dinesh Prajapat s/o Shri Shiv Lal Prajapat, aged 21 years r/o Godawari Basti, near Government School Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh. He contends that the Police party on 31.08.2018 intercepted a white Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-09-GB0532 on a highway. Three persons were there in the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by the accused Dinesh Prajapat s/o Shri Shiv Lal Prajapat, aged 21 years r/o Godawari Basti, near Government School Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh. The other persons sitting by the side of the driver was Khemraj s/o Balram Kumawat r/o Basedi Kundal Police Station Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh and the third was Lalit Singh Mehta s/o Sh. Nandlal r/o Pratap Chowk, Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh. Upon checking of the vehicle a total 308.300 kg poppy husk came to be recovered from that vehicle, the accused were arrested at the spot. During the course of the investigation, the said three accused who were arrested from the spot disclosed in their interrogation note that the present petitioner namely Dinesh Prajapat s/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat was also involved in the commission of crime, accordingly with the add of Section 29 of NDPS Act; the petitioner was arrested and charge-sheeted and the trial is going on but no witness has been examined yet. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the bail application vehemently submitted that two bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, therefore the petitioner is not entitle to be enlarged on bail. The learned State Counsel has not been able to show any piece of evidence which is legally admissible and can relate the accused with the crime. 6. Heard and minutely perused the record of the case as made available by the counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was not the same person who was found in that vehicle from which huge quantity of contraband came to be recovered. It is a case of the prosecution that upon interrogation from the three who were apprehended at the spot; it was revealed that the present applicant handed over the vehicle to them. As a matter of fact nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. He has been booked in this matter simply on the basis of the so-called confessional statement of the co-accused persons made by them to police officers during the custody; evidentiary value of which might be debatable at this stage. As a matter of fact nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. He has been booked in this matter simply on the basis of the so-called confessional statement of the co-accused persons made by them to police officers during the custody; evidentiary value of which might be debatable at this stage. The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no legally admissible evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident, requires serious consideration. 7. As far as the question of limitation contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor has been given ample opportunity to protest, however he could not controvert the submissions canvassed by the petitioner regarding availability of cogent admissible evidence. 8. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was arrested in the month of September, 2018 till date not a single prosecution witness could have been examined and the witnesses projected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet are 21 in number. Suffice it would be to say that still the trial would likely to take a long time to conclude. In these facts and circumstances of the case more particularly the long incarceration of the petitioner in jail without trial and in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding speedy disposal of the trial and considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, I deem it proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat r/o Jaloliya Kalu Khdea Tehsil and Police Station Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Dinesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Shankar Lal Prajapat r/o Jaloliya Kalu Khdea Tehsil and Police Station Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh shall be enlarged on bail if he is not required in any other case provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. 10. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are limited to the extent of disposal of the present bail application and the same would not in any way affect the merits of the case in the trial.