Jagdish Jat vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prakash Soni, J

The petitioner who is under arrest for committing the offence under Section(s) 8/15 and 8/25 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the “Act”), as per the FIR No.185/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Chittorgarh, has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail. The first application for bail was disposed of without considering the merits of the case since it was not pressed by the petitioner.

On the basis of a seizure effected by S.H.O. of police station Sadar, Chittorgarh a formal FIR mentioned above was registered against the petitioner on 15.07.2021 at the said Police Station alleging inter alia that police laid Naka at a road leading from Rithola Circle to Bhilawara and intercepted a car bearing Registration No. GJ-01RN-2349 being boarded by Petitioner himself and other co-accused and allegedly recovered 461 Kgs. of Poppy Straw from the vehicle.

After investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner besides other co-accused. During the trial, statements of not a single witness have been recorded so far.

This Court has carefully perused the record as well as considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

The perusal of record reveals that earlier an application for bail was submitted on behalf of co-accused Bhagwana Ram alias Ramesh, during the hearing of which liberty was sought by the learned counsel for the accused to move a fresh application for bail only after recording the statement of the seizure officer.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the present bail application on several grounds but the fact has not been brought to the notice of the court that earlier the bail application of co-accused Bhagwana Ram was withdrawn on the ground that fresh bail application would be filed after recording the statement of seizure officer.

As a consequence of which, it does not seem appropriate and justified to consider the bail petition of another accused without recording the statement of the Seizure Officer.

Consequently, this Court is not inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this stage and hence, the instant second bail application stands dismissed.