Chandra Shekhar vs State Of Rajasthan

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.9/2023, registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that contraband (M.D.M.A.) weighing 12.40 gm was recovered from the conscious possession of co-accused Khinwraj. At the initial stage, co-accused Khinwraj in his statements, had stated that he procured the recovered contraband (M.D.M.A.) from the co-accused Rahul Godara. Later, co-accused named the present petitioner in his statements under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of information provided by the co-accused Khinwraj under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel further submitted that since initially the petitioner was not named by the co-accused, he may be enlarged on bail.

It was submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no direct or corroborative evidence available against the petitioner so as to implicate him. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, implored the court to accept the application for bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the information provided by co-accused Khinwraj under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner has been named and it has been further stated that he procured the recovered contraband from the present petitioner at 12th Road Circle, Jodhpur. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that during investigation, telephonic conversation and call details between all the co-accused persons and petitioner were found by the Investigating Agency, showing his link with the alleged crime.

Heard.

Keeping in view that sufficient corroborative evidence in from of telephonic conversation and call details between the petitioner and co-accused is available on record and also the information provided by co-accused Khinwraj under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the firm view that the rigors contained in Section 37 of NDPS Act are clearly attracted to the present case. This court in the above facts and circumstances, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.