Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 196 (RAJ)

Shivraj v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-04

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.104/2024, registered at Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/22, 8/18 and 25 of NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 3. As per the prosecution, on 16.03.2024, A.S.I. Nagendra Singh alongwith other police officials, during nakabandi near Ghadseesar Fanta Jodhpur Bypass flagged down one Swift car bearing registration No.RJ-14-CT-5145. The co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki was sitting on the wheel of the offending vehicle whereas the petitioner- Shivraj was sitting beside him. On suspicion that they possessed some prohibited substance in the vehicle, the police team after following the procedure provided under the NDPS Act searched the vehicle whereupon, contraband MDMA weighing 95 gms. and contraband opium weighing 1 kg. in 2 plastic bags were recovered from the dashboard of the offending vehicle. The petitioner- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki in their statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, divulged the information that they had procured the contraband (MD) from the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi R/o Marudhar Colony, Nagaur. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsels submitted that the petitioners did not possess the contraband rather the alleged contraband was planted on the petitioners for the reason that they had refused to comply with the extortion demand of money made by the police officials. Learned counsels submitted that no recovery as alleged has been effected from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner- Shivraj. Even the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has no role to play in commission of the alleged crime. 5. The counsels further asserted that the aforestated unlawful action of the police officials was captured on CCTV cameras installed near the house of the co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki. Even the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has no role to play in commission of the alleged crime. 5. The counsels further asserted that the aforestated unlawful action of the police officials was captured on CCTV cameras installed near the house of the co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki. Learned counsels submitted that a careful analysis of the footages captured by CCTV cameras at the relevant time would indicate that the petitioner- Shivraj and the co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki were apprehended by the police team from the house of Omprakash @ Pinki at about 05:45 pm., whereas as per the prosecution, the contraband was allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners- Shivraj and Dilip Vishnoi at about 07:30 pm., from a Swift car bearing registration No.RJ- 14-CT-5145. Learned counsel contended that as a matter of fact, news with regard to arrest of petitioner- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki was flashed by the news channels at about 07:00 pm., i.e. much before the time of their arrest as mentioned by the police in the challan papers and other documents. To substantiate this contention, learned counsels drew attention of the Court towards the CCTV footages enclosed with the present bail applications. 6. The learned counsels further stated that the family members of the petitioners have submitted representations to the higher police officials ventilating their grievances and pleading therein to take action against the erring police officials but of no avail. The learned counsels contended that surprisingly when the police was asked to analyze the footages of the CCTV cameras installed by the police at various places of the city, from Abhay Command Centre/ICC, Bikaner, it was found that the CCTV footages had already been deleted. Learned counsels submitted that no satisfactory explanation for the deletion of footages has been furnished by the officals of Abhay Centre/ICC Bikaner. 7. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsels implored the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the present case under NDPS Act has rightly been registered against the petitioners. The petitioner- Shivraj was apprehended by the police and the contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered from him. The petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has been apprehended in the present case on the basis of the informations supplied by the co-accused person- Omprakash @ Pinki and the petitioner- Shivraj. The petitioner- Shivraj was apprehended by the police and the contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered from him. The petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has been apprehended in the present case on the basis of the informations supplied by the co-accused person- Omprakash @ Pinki and the petitioner- Shivraj. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the nature of the allegations levelled by the family members of the petitioners in their representations against the Seizure Officer and the other police officials, the Superintendent of Police got the matter enquired through Additional Superintendent of Police (City) Bikaner. Who after analysing the CCTV footages and other material made available to him by the complainant has reached to a conclusion that no illegality or irregularity as alleged has taken place in the present case. The allegation of planting the contraband upon the accused has prima facie not been found to be correct. Learned Public Prosecutor further argued that in the present case, all the mandatory provisions contained in the NDPS Act have been complied with. Thus, he prayed that the present bail applications may be rejected. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that in the present case, according to the prosecution, the accused- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki were found in possession of 95 gms. of contraband MDMA and 1 kg. of contraband opium. The recovered contraband MDMA/MD was allegedly supplied to them by the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi. The allegation against the police team which conducted search and seizure proceedings is that they had planted the alleged contrabands upon the petitioner- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki whereas, the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi was apprehended from his residence much before the recovery of the contraband was effected. This Court further finds that the family members of the petitioner Dilip Vishnoi had provided certain CCTV footages as an evidence that he has been wrongly implicated as an accused in the NDPS case, however, the Additional Superintendent of Police (City) Bikaner after analyzing the CCTV footages and the other material has reached to a conclusion that the CCTV footages did not show the police personnel taking the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi away from his residence, prior to recovery of the contraband having been effected from the petitioner- Shivraj and Omprakash @ Pinki. 11. 11. This Court looking to the nature of allegations against the present petitioners and the material produced before it, is not required to make a detailed analysis of the evidence and elaborate its findings on the merits of the case, particularly considering the fact that the accused petitioners are charged of having committed a serious offence under the NDPS Act coupled with the fact that statements of Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer have yet not been recorded before the competent criminal Court, this Court while recusing itself to record its finding on merits of the case, which may effect the trial, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present bail applications are dismissed. 13. The petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application(s) after recording of the statements of the Seizure Officer and the Investigating Officer before the competent criminal Court. 14. It is expected from the competent criminal Court to record the statements of the Seizure Officer and the Investigating Officer on priority basis. 15. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C . (483 BNSS) are dismissed.