Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2911 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2022-12-08

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.40/2017 of Police Station Bhojasar, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that one more case of NDPS Act is pending against him in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also submitted that in the said case, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has enlarged the petitioner on bail vide order dated 30.11.2022. It is further submitted that no recovery of narcotic contraband has been effected from the petitioner and all the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application, however, submitted that even though the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in another case of NDPS Act by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh but the facts remains that one another case of NDPS Act is pending against him. It is also submitted that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from the benefit of bail because this Court vide order dated 04.11.2020 granted him interim bail while believing on his prayer that he is required to get her wife treated for heart ailment, however, after expiry of the interim bail period, he absconded and did not surrender himself as directed by this Court. It is also submitted that later on, the petitioner was again arrested by the police. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in that absconding case, the petitioner has already been convicted and the trial court has sentenced him for three months. 6. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner of not surrendering himself before the jail authority after expiry of the interim bail period, it can very well be assumed that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again abscond. 7. 6. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner of not surrendering himself before the jail authority after expiry of the interim bail period, it can very well be assumed that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may again abscond. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this criminal misc. third bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.