Chhotaram vs State Of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J

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 FIR No.395/2018 of Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police seized 64 kgs. of poppy straw in an abandoned vehicle laying near Tilwada. The police started investigation on the basis of the registration number of that vehicle and contacted the dealer, who in turn informed that the vehicle is in the name of co-accused Rakesh Vishnoi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police apprehended co-accused Rakesh Vishnoi, who while in police custody during the course of interrogation has informed that the petitioner was with him on the date of incident when they fled away from the scene of crime after abandoning the vehicle, in which the poppy straw was laying.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the information provided by co-accused Rakesh Vishnoi while in police custody during the course of interrogation, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the statements of two Investigating Officers viz. Sumer Singh S/o Chand Singh (PW-4) and Sumer Singh S/o Vishan Singh (PW-7) and argued that from the evidence of above named witnesses, it is clear that no call detail has been collected by the police during the course of investigation to establish the connection of the petitioner with co-accused Rakesh Vishnoi and no eye witnesses have also confirmed that the petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Vishnoi were together on the date of incident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is settled that any information provided by the co-accused while in police custody is not admissible in evidence.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner-Chhotaram S/o Malukaram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.395/2018 of Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi 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.