Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2980 (RAJ)

Bhimgar v. State of Rajasthan

2022-12-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal misc. third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this bail application may kindly be allowed and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be release on bail." 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.154/2020 registered at Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali for the offences under Sections 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act of 1985’). 3. The first Bail Application, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12108/2020, preferred on behalf of the present petitioner, was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 06.11.2020 passed by this Court, with liberty to file a fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet; while the second bail application preferred on behalf of the present petitioner, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2799/2021 was dismissed, as withdrawn at that stage, vide order dated 20.01.2022 passed by this Court. 4. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 17.06.2020, Shri Gopal Vishnoi, S.H.O. Marwar Police Station, District Pali received an information regarding certain contraband, and on the same day, the said S.H.O., along with a police team blocked the road at the border of Panchetiya; and at about 6:10 p.m., a vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-02-BD-6179 broke the blockade, whilst being driven towards Banta; whereupon the police team chased the said vehicle, and for the purpose of avoiding interception by the police team, the said vehicle also hit the police vehicle, but after due efforts, the police team surrounded the offending vehicle and caught its driver. 4.1 Upon being asked about the identity, the accused (driver) introduced himself as Rekhagar and the other person sitting with him in the vehicle, introduced himself as Bhimgar (present accused-petitioner). Thereafter, upon complying with the necessary provisions of law, the police team carried out the search of the said vehicle, being a ’Swift Car’ and found a total of 103 kg of poppy straw (Doda Post); the contraband was accordingly seized by the concerned police authorities. Thereafter, the accused were arrested, and the impugned FIR was registered against them. Thereafter, upon complying with the necessary provisions of law, the police team carried out the search of the said vehicle, being a ’Swift Car’ and found a total of 103 kg of poppy straw (Doda Post); the contraband was accordingly seized by the concerned police authorities. Thereafter, the accused were arrested, and the impugned FIR was registered against them. 4.2 Upon investigation, the concerned police authorities filed the charge-sheet against both the accused, whereupon the learned Court below framed charges under Sections 8/15 & 25 of the Act of 1985 against the accused. Upon commencement of trial, statements of six witnesses were recorded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated; on the sole premise that he was sitting alongwith the driver of the offending vehicle (Swift Car), and that the co-accused-driver has not disclosed anything which could point toward the fact that the accused-petitioner was having the knowledge of the presence of contraband in the said vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the testimony of P.W.6-Gopal Vishnoi clearly reveals the contradiction in cross-examination, and the statement also shows non-compliance of the mandatory provision of law contained in Section 50 of the Act of 1985. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned order, passed by the learned Court below, also did not make any mention about any previous criminal antecedent(s) against the accused-petitioner, pertaining to offences under the Act of 1985. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 870 of 2016) decided on 09.03.2022; further reliance was also placed on the judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court in the cases of Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6775/2021), decided on 24.06.2021; Aasulal v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application 7066/2021), decided on 01.09.2021; Sumerram v. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10398/2020), decided on 09.12.2020; Sahil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3938/2021), decided on 19.09.2022 and; Chunni Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 1990), decided on 02.12.2022. 9. Bail Application 7066/2021), decided on 01.09.2021; Sumerram v. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10398/2020), decided on 09.12.2020; Sahil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3938/2021), decided on 19.09.2022 and; Chunni Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 1990), decided on 02.12.2022. 9. On other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner and submitted that the accused-petitioner was found to be in a possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, without any valid license or permission, and therefore, the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order whereby the bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed, after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidences placed on record. Thus, as per the learned Public Prosecutor, the present third bail application ought not to be entertained by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 11. This Court observes that the concerned police authorities recovered the contraband in question, being of a commercial quantity, from the accused-petitioner, and that there is not a single fact on record before this Court, which could show the non-involvement of the accused-petitioner, in the crime in question. 12. This Court further observes after due investigation, the concerned police authorities found the involvement of the accused-petitioner in the crime in question, and thus, the learned Court below proceeded to frame the charges against the present accused-petitioner and other accused persons. 13. This Court also observes that the statement rendered by P.W.6-Gopal Bishnoi, the Seizure Officer in his cross-examination stated that the contraband in question, of a commercial quantity, was recovered from the vehicle, wherein the present petitioner was sitting alongwith the driver (co-accused). 14. This Court further observes that the judgments cited at the Bar, on behalf of the petitioner, do not render any assistance to the case of the accused-petitioner. 15. This Court, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially the recovery of the commercial quantity of the contraband in question, and the fact that a direct role has been attributed to the accused-petitioner, in regard to the crime in question, is not inclined to grant him bail, at this stage. 16. 15. This Court, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, especially the recovery of the commercial quantity of the contraband in question, and the fact that a direct role has been attributed to the accused-petitioner, in regard to the crime in question, is not inclined to grant him bail, at this stage. 16. Consequently, the present third bail application is dismissed. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove, at this stage, shall not prejudice the case of the present petitioner, on merits, during trial.