Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 246 (RAJ)

Bhanwarlal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-01-25

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT arun Bhansali, J. - The present 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.54/2020, P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS act. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the second bail application was rejected by the Court after the statements of Investigating Officer were recorded. Since then, the statements of PW/2 - Laxman Ram and PW/3 - Seizure Officer have also been recorded. 3. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has been implicated based on statements of co-accused - Baig Raj and Updesh recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS act, which are not admissible in evidence. 4. Submissions have also been made that in the statements of the three witnesses examined so far, the petitioner has not been connected in any manner with the alleged office. 5. Reliance has been placed on Tofan Singh v. Tamil Nadu: (2021) 4 SCC 1 and State by (NCB) Bengaluru v. Palluabid ahmad arimutta & anr.: Special Leave to appeal (CRL.) No.242/2022, decided on 10.1.2022. 6. It is submitted that there are no antecedent cases against the petitioner, the petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2020 and the trial is like to take time and looking to the nature of evidence, which has come on record, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application making submissions that the SIM in question, which has been recovered from the petitioner, its CDR has been produced as Ex.P/23 by the Investigating Officer and as such the connection between the petitioner and co-accused - Baig Raj & Updesh, has been established and, therefore, the bail application deserves dismissal. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The co-accused Baig Raj and Updesh, who were travelling on a motorcycle were apprehended with the contraband and they in their statements recorded under Section 67 of the act indicated that they had purchased the material from the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The co-accused Baig Raj and Updesh, who were travelling on a motorcycle were apprehended with the contraband and they in their statements recorded under Section 67 of the act indicated that they had purchased the material from the petitioner. a SIM was recovered from the petitioner, which was standing in the name of his Uncle - Laxman Ram, who in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicated that he had given the SIM to the petitioner, however, when he was examined as PW/2, he turned hostile and denied having given the SIM to the petitioner. 10. In the statements of PW/1, Investigating Officer and PW/3 - Seizure Officer, which have been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner on record, except for producing the CDR of the SIM in question, which was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has not even taken the pain to point out the part of the CDR, whereby, the calls have been made from the particular SIM to Baig Raj and/or Updesh. 11. In the circumstances of the case and judgments in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) and Pallulabid ahmad arimutta (supra), without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that this 3rd bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted. 12. Consequently, the 3rd bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-applicant - Bhanwarlal S/o Devaram, arrested in connection with FIR No.54/2020, P.S. Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail; provided he furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.