Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 559 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal S/o Kuka Dhakad v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-02-17

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

body2023
ORDER : 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Mohan Lal S/o Kuka Dhakad, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.140/2021, Police Station Begu District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The first bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10222/2021 was dismissed as not pressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2021. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner. He further submits that the only allegation against the present petitioner is that he was escorting the car from which alleged poppy husk was recovered but the same was not driven by him. He further submits that after the recovery of alleged contraband, present-petitioner was connected with a recovered mobile No.6376877922 from the car. He further submits that at the time of arrest, one mobile was recovered which belonged to present petitioner wherein he was using Sim No.9376609651 & 9630911973. He further submits that these two mobile numbers are nowhere in touch with either of the recovered mobile number or Sim of Nirmal S/o Hanumana Ram. He further submits that the accused is behind bar without any specific set of evidence. He further submits that despite the fact that no recovery was effected from the conscious possession of the present-petitioner, still he was arrested by the Investigating Agency. Assuming the fact that the recovery of 52 kgs of poppy husk i.e. the border line case as regards to commercial quantity is concerned and in similar matters where border line case of recovery was made out even then, this Court has granted bail on many occasions. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the bail orders passed in S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.6343/2022, 15785/2022, 10219/2022 & 15912/2022 (Hajari Lal Vs. State), (Kuldeep Singh Vs. State), (Kailash Vs.State) & (Rahul Vs. State) in which the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 07.07.2020, 13/12/2022 & 16.12.2020 have granted bail. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision dated 06.04.2022 rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Vikrant Singh Vs. State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-39657/2020 alongwith two other matters. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision dated 06.04.2022 rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Vikrant Singh Vs. State of Punjab passed in CRM-M-39657/2020 alongwith two other matters. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the present petitioner is a key accused of the recovery, as he was escorting the vehicle from which the contraband was transported. He further submits that from the alleged car, a mobile phone was also recovered containing Sim in the name of present petitioner. Thus, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 5. As regards, the present petitioner is concerned, the seizure memo prepared on 05.07.2021 indicates that the present petitioner when intercepted, informed the police that he had sold poppy husk to Mr. Nirmal and his friends and they were transporting the recovered contraband in the car of Nirmal alongwith one other car but during nakabandi, two such cars were found coming from ‘Caro-ki-dhani’ and one of such car was rushed away after breaking nakabandi but another car was intercepted wherein a mobile containing Sim No.6376877922 was recovered and during investigation it was found that the said Sim belonged to present petitioner. 6. In the case in hand, 52 kgs of poppy husk was recovered, which is a commercial quantity. No doubt about the fact that the present petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2021 and as per the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor no other case is registered against him but herein, it is clear from the fact that at the time of recovery of alleged contraband, present petitioner was present at the spot though, he was not traveling in the car. Hence, at the stage of granting bail it is not possible for this Court to look into the niceties and merits of the allegations as the same are subject matter of trial. As regards to enlargement of bail in the matters are referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I respectfully disagree with them, as the same cannot be relied upon in each and every case because the facts of the each case vary. 7. As regards to enlargement of bail in the matters are referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I respectfully disagree with them, as the same cannot be relied upon in each and every case because the facts of the each case vary. 7. In view of the above discussion made herein above, this Court thinks it not fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.