Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 687 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-03-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - It is unfortunate that Advocates are not appearing and are abstaining from work pursuant to the call given by the office bearers of the Bar Association. Such non-appearance is clearly illegal and in breach of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in [ 2003 (2) SCC 45 ]. 2. Heard petitioner’s wife as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 3. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.88/2019 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Section 8/22 NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 4. As per the prosecution story, on 23.07.2019, tablets containing narcotic contraband tramadol and tablets containing narcotic contraband TRIO-SR weighing around 2250 gms have been recovered from the custody of the petitioner. The said narcotic contraband recovered at the instance of the petitioner is above commercial quantity. 5. Mrs. Shaloo Rani, petitioner’s wife, present in person, has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2019, however, the trial against him could not be completed till date. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this third bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date. 8. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.88/2019 of Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.