Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 176 (RAJ)

Ram @ Sanjay v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-03

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.265/2020, registered at Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 353 of IPC; Sections 3/25 of Arms Act; and Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. As per the prosecution, on 09.11.2020, SHO, Police Station Badi Sadri during routine nakabandi near Ramanujam School, Khermalia Road, Sarhad Khardewla, at about 09:50 pm., signalled one white coloured unnumbered Scorpio vehicle to stop. Upon seeing the police, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle accelerated the vehicle and the co-passenger of the vehicle started firing towards the police personnel. Due to the road being narrow, the driver of the Scorpio vehicle tried to flee from the scene by driving the car in reverse which collided with the stairs of a school situated nearby. Thereafter, the SHO, Badi Sadri alongwith his police team chased the Scorpio vehicle whereupon the driver and the co- passenger of the vehicle left the car on the side of the road and by taking advantage of the night time, managed to flee from the grip of the police. As per the prosecution, when the abandoned offending vehicle was searched, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 4 quintals and 40 kgs. was recovered from 22 black coloured plastic sacks being transported in the offending vehicle. 3. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the contraband greater than commercial quantity was being transported by the co-accused persons namely Mukesh Kumar and Bhajanlal. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he alongwith the co-accused persons namely Govardhan, Bhajanlal and Mukesh got the contraband (poppy husk/straw) loaded in two vehicles upon directions of the co-accused- Raju @ Rajendra. During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that on the very same day when the petitioner along with co-accused Govardhan was transporting the contraband (poppy husk/straw) in another vehicle Isuzu, a police team of P.S. Sindhari, District Barmer had intercepted their Isuzu vehicle upon which they had also fled from the scene by showing pistol to the police personnel and later on the petitioner was arrested by the team of P.S.Dhorimanna. 4. Learned senior counsel Shri Anand Purohit vehemently and fervently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. Learned senior counsel Shri Anand Purohit vehemently and fervently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of the Seizure Officer (PW.2) and the Investigating Officer (PW.4) recorded before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of the co-accused Bhajanlal while he was in police custody. Learned senior counsel submitted that the material available on record clearly indicates that except the confessional statements of co-accused Bhajanlal and Mukesh Kumar involving themselves and the petitioner in the alleged crime, nothing new has been brought forth by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. 5. Learned senior counsel submitted that though it has come on record that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and more than 8 NDPS cases have been lodged against him but he was not convicted in any of those cases. It was contended that the petitioner is still an accused and not a convict and therefore, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the competent criminal Court. 6. On the strength of aforementioned grounds and submissions, learned senior counsel implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It was stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is facing trial for serious offences which are not limited to merely NDPS matters but also extend to offences pertaining to attempt to murder and those punishable under the Arms Act, PDPP Act, I.T. Act, etc. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a settled law that while considering the bail application arising out of proceedings under NDPS Act, this Court is required to keep in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Learned counsel contended that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail to the petitioner in the present case is circumscribed with the provisions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel contended that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant bail to the petitioner in the present case is circumscribed with the provisions contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted only in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In support of his contention, learned Public Prosecutor has placed a reliance upon an order passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3 rd Bail Application No.5519/2024: “ Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan ” wherein this Court has observed as under:- “10.…….The phrase ‘reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail’ appearing under Section 37(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act indicate that while granting bail to an accused for the offences under NDPS Act, a Court requires more than a prima facie belief that the accused is not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The burden lies on the accused to demonstrate that he would not commit any crime of similar nature or otherwise in case, he is enlarged on bail. 11. In the opinion of this Court, if an accused is involved in numerous criminal cases of serious nature, the Court should not be in a position to record a satisfaction in favour of the accused that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged or would not commit any offence while on bail. Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to the accused persons for the offences under the Act as the possibility of accused involving/repeating the crime of trade of Narcotics cannot be rule out in such cases. It is also to be noticed that trial against the petitioner has already started and therefore, looking to his criminal record, in case, he is enlarged on bail, the possibility of his influencing the prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice cannot be ruled out at this stage.” 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted a list of criminal cases pending/decided against the petitioner which reads as under:- 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted a list of criminal cases pending/decided against the petitioner which reads as under:- 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 10. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad reported in (2001) 7 SCC 673 , wherein it has observed as under:- “…...Negation of bail is the rule and its grant and exception under sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in a plethora of judgments have held that a bail Court while dealing with the matters under NDPS Act involving commercial quantity has to record its satisfaction in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The mandate contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act has been discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases:- i. State of Kerela & Ors. Vs. Rajesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 721 , ii. Union of India Vs. Ratan Malik reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 , iii. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kishan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 558 , iv. Union of India Vs. Shiv Shaurav Kesari reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798 , and v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau Vs. Sambhu Sonkar & Ors., Control reported in AIR 2001 SC 830 12. Ratan Malik reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 , iii. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kishan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 558 , iv. Union of India Vs. Shiv Shaurav Kesari reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798 , and v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau Vs. Sambhu Sonkar & Ors., Control reported in AIR 2001 SC 830 12. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that a bare perusal of the case file indicates that the allegations levelled against the present petitioner are very serious. As per the prosecution, he not only loaded and transported a huge quantity of contraband in two unnumbered vehicles but when he was intercepted by the police personnels, he fled away from the place of incident by showing them a gun. The co-accused persons had even fired gun-shots towards the police personnel with an intention to cause harm to them. The place from where the contraband was loaded in the offending vehicles has been identified by the petitioner. The blank cartridges have also been recovered from the place of incident. 13. True it is, that out of the 20 criminal cases lodged against the petitioner, the petitioner in a few of the cases, has already been acquitted by the competent criminal Court on account of benefit of doubt but that would not be sufficient to record a finding that the accused is not guilty of offence in the present case and that he is not likely to commit offences punishable under the NDPS Act while on bail. The evidentiary value of the statements of the co-accused persons and the other material collected by the Investigating Agency against the present petitioner is not required to be discussed and adjudicated upon by this Court at this stage as the trial against the petitioner has already commenced. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in the present case. 15. Consequently, this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is dismissed.