Chandraprakash @ Sanjay @ Chandu vs State Of Rajasthan

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

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.91/2018 of Police Station Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he had supplied 100 kgs of poppy straw to the co-accused persons namely Lalit and Ramlal from whom the police have recovered the same. It is argued that in the seizure memo, it is not mentioned that those two co-accused persons had given any information about procurement of said narcotic contraband. Later on information under Section 27 of Evidence Act was received by the police from the above named co-accused persons in which they informed that they procured those narcotic contraband from one Kuldeep, however, on 13.5.2018, the police arrested the petitioner with the allegation that he had supplied the said narcotic contraband to those co-accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded before trial court wherein in the cross-examination he has specifically stated that in the recovery memo Ex.P/1, there is no mention that Lalit and Rampal had procured narcotic contraband from the petitioner. In Ex.P.2, name of Kuldeep is mentioned and the Investigating Officer has further admitted that no such witness is there, who says that the petitioner had handed over the vehicle, in which the narcotic contraband was transported, to those two co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited attention of this Court towards the admission of Investigating Officer in which he has also admitted that there is no witness who confirmed that he/she had seen the co-accused Lalit and Rampal with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has also specifically admitted that he has not confirmed about the ownership of the place which is shown to be of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime or to prove that the petitioner has supplied the said narcotic contraband to the co-accused persons Lait and Rampal, it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act, however, in absence of any evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act is not possible.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone thrugh the statement of PW-1 Keshu Lal, Investigagint Officer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Chandraprakash @ Sanjay @ Chandu S/o Radheshyam shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.91/2018 of Police Station Dhariyawad, District Pratapgarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.