Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 411 (RAJ)

Amrit @ Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-18

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2022 registered at Police Station Mandafiya, Dist. Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused Ashok, on the basis of whose information supplied under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of co-accused Ashok while he was in custody, there is not even an iota of evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. 4. The order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court while enlarging co-accused Ashok in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11496/2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “This second 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.137/2022, registered at Police Station Mandafiya, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 29.09.2022, during routine nakabandi, the police team of Police Station Mandafiya, flagged down a white coloured car bearing registration No.GJ-06-JE-9994. The driver of the offending vehicle upon seeing the police party fled away from the scene. The police team upon a search of the offending vehicle recovered contraband (Poppy Husk/Straw) weighing 368.900 kgs. in 29 plastic sacks and Opium weighing 900 gms. in 1 plastic bag. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated and arrested in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion on 23.02.2024 i.e. after more than one and a half years from the date of recovery of the contraband, without there being any direct or circumstantial evidence against him available on record, indicating his involvement in the commission of the alleged crime. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Agency in the challan papers has mentioned that a false and fabricated number plate was used for plying the offending vehicle. The Investigating Agency had recovered a mobile phone from the offending vehicle which contained a sim card No. 9784653753 belonging to one Barkat Khan. Barkat Khan in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that he never got the sim card No.9784653753 issued in his favour and the sim card did not belong to him. Learned counsel submitted that upon and investigation with regard to the frequent contacts of Barkat Khan, it surfaced that on 28.09.2022, a day prior to the incident, one Bankaram had exchanged certain calls with Barkat Khan. Thereafter Bankaram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. informed the Investigating Agency that the sim card No. 9784653753 was being used by the present petitioner. The petitioner however, switched off the mobile/sim card No. 9784653753 from 29.09.2022. Drawing further attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that the offending vehicle belonged to the present petitioner or was being used by him for transportation of the contraband illegally. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the contraband was not recovered from the conscious/exclusive possession of the present petitioner. Prima facie, this Court finds that neither the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the present petitioner nor the mobile/sim card No. 9784653753 was issued in his name. The petitioner prima facie in the present case has been implicated on the basis of the statements of one Bankaram who has not even being named as an accused in the present case. This Court further prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the present petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court further prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the present petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Ashok S/o Aaidan Ram Solanki (Mali), arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2022, registered at Police Station Mandafiya, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same. ” 5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused Ashok, who has already been enlarged on bail. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case particularly keeping in view the fact that the co-accused Ashok has already been enlarged on bail, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Amrit @ Rahul S/o Sh. Rai Singh Bawari arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2022 registered at Police Station Mandafiya, Dist. 8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Amrit @ Rahul S/o Sh. Rai Singh Bawari arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.137/2022 registered at Police Station Mandafiya, Dist. Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.