Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 159 (RAJ)

Prakash Thori v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-23

DINESH MEHTA

body2024
ORDER : 1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') in connection with FIR No. 97/2021, registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur (Rural) for the offences under Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'). A charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been enroped in the case simply because of his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 3. Learned counsel argued that the statement given in the police custody without there being any corresponding recovery has no sanctity in the eye of law and that even as per such statement, the applicant has simply disclosed the place where the principal accused (Mangi Lal) was supposed to deliver the contraband substances. 4. Learned counsel submitted that apart from such intimation, there is no incriminating evidence against the applicant. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that a case of similar nature is pending against the present applicant. 6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been enroped in the case on the basis of the conjectures and surmises and simply because one case is pending against him, he cannot be refused enlargement, particularly when there is no evidence against him. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet. 8. On carefully going through the charge-sheet, this Court finds that the only reason for which the present applicant has been inculpated is, applicant's statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is noteworthy that even the principal accused (Mangi Lal), who is in custodial interrogation had not informed that he was to supply the contraband substance to the present applicant. 9. There is no evidence which links or establishes nexus between principal accused (Mangi Lal) and the present applicant in the form of call details or otherwise. 10. The statement given by principal accused (Mangi Lal) in judicial custody so also applicant's statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot bring the charge against the present applicant home, particularly when no recovery has been effected from the applicant. 11. 10. The statement given by principal accused (Mangi Lal) in judicial custody so also applicant's statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot bring the charge against the present applicant home, particularly when no recovery has been effected from the applicant. 11. The applicant in his information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has simply disclosed the place where the contraband substance was supposed to be delivered, whereas in the information given by the principal accused (Mangi Lal), there is no whisper about applicant's name or place where the goods were to be supplied. 12. This Court has, therefore, every reason to believe that the applicant is not involved in the offence alleged, as there is no evidence worth the name pointing towards his involvement. The requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 stands fulfilled. 13. The bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is, therefore, allowed. The applicant - Prakash Thori S/o Bhanwar Lal arrested in connection with FIR No. 97/2021, registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur (Rural) shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 14. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 15. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.