Rahul vs State Of Rajasthan

Vijay Bishnoi, J

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.231/2018 of Police Station Nimbahera Sadar, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under

Sections 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of third bail application of the petitioner, the petitioner has moved an application

before the trial court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to recall the witnesses PW-1 Darshan Singh the then Investigating Officer and PW-2

Rajaram the then Seizure Officer. It is submitted that the said application of the petitioner came to be dismissed by the trial court, however, a

Coordiante Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.11.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.913/2021 (Rahul Vs. State of Rajasthan)

allowed the request of the petitioner and directed the trial court to summon the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that pursuant to that, the

statements of PW-2 Rajaram (Seizure Officer) have been recorded before the trial court on 14.12.2021. It is submitted that PW-2 Rajaram (Seizure

Officer) in his cross- examination has specifically submitted that he first took poppy straw from each bag then he mixed the said poppy straw on a

tarpaulin and thereafter took two samples from that mixture.

Learned counse for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the above piece of evidence, it is clear that PW-2 Rajaram (Seizure Officer) did not

follow the established procedure for taking the samples.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that from the Seizure Memo, it is clear that the poppy straw was filled in a

secreate cavity of the vehicle and from there the police collected the same and placed it on a tarpaulin and thereafter took samples from it. It is also

submitted that there is no question of taking some poppy straw from each bag then mixed the said poppy straw on a tarpaulin and thereafter took two

samples from that mixture because the poppy straw was not found in the bags, however, it was lying in secreate cavity of the vehicle. Learned Public

Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

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

In the Seizure Memo, it is clearly mentioned that the huge quantity of poppy straw was lying in the secreate cavity of the vehicle and from there the

said poppy straw was collected by the Seizure Officer on a tarpaulin and thereafter he took samples as well as control samples from it. Learned

Public Prosecutor is right in saying that when the poppy straw was not found in bags at the time of seizure, it is difficulte to believe that the Sezireu

Officer has not taken seperate samples from bags.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this criminal misc. fourth bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.