Raju @ Rajendra vs State

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.272/2017 of Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, on 29.11.2017, two persons Saka Ram and Radha Kishan were arrested by the police while transporting around 104 kgs 450 gms. of poppy straw in a vehicle. It is submitted that during the course of interrogation, those persons, who were arrested while transporting illegal poppy straw did not disclose name of the person, from whom they had procured the said narcotic contraband. They had simply informed that they procured the recovered poppy straw from unknown person, however, on 05.12.2017, the police recorded the information given by Saka Ram and Radha Kishan under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein they informed that they had procured the said narcotic contraband from one Raju Bhat. It is submitted that even in the said information, father's name and address of Raju Bhat is not mentioned. Later on, the police have arrested the petitioner alleging that he had supplied the narcotic contraband to Saka Ram and Radha Kishan. It is submitted that after investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act and the trial court has also framed charges against the petitioner for the said offence. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, the police had collected evidence of this effect that petitioner is in regular conversation on mobile phone with accused Saka Ram and this fact is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner had supplied narcotic contraband to co-accused persons Saka Ram and Radha Kishan. It is submitted that now statement of the Investigating Officer PW-9 Tulsi Ram have been recorded before the trial court, wherein he has specifically admitted that mobile phone and sim used by co-accused Saka Ram is not in his name and mobile phone and sim recovered from the petitioner are also not in his name but the same are in the name of one Shyam Jat S/o Kishan Jat resident of Aakola. It is submitted that though the police have implicated the petitioner on the basis of so-called mobile phone conversation between him and the co-accused Saka Ram but the police have failed to collect any evidence that the said mobile phone used by the petitioner is in his name. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only evidence remains against the petitioner is the information given by co-accused persons Saka Ram and Radha Kishan to the police while in police custody, whereas it is well settled that any information given by an accused person in police custody is not admissible in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore prayed that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the charge-sheet as well as statement of the Investigating 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 Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Raju @ Rajendra S/o Sh. Shyamlal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.272/2017 of Police Station Kotdi, District Bhilwara 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.