Rajuram @ Rajendra vs State Of Rajasthan

Farjand Ali, J

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.

Particulars of the Case

1

FIR Number

42/2020

2

Concerned Police Station

Dangiyawas

3

District

Jodhpur

4

Offences alleged in the FIR

Under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and 3/25 of the Arms Act

5

Offences added, if any

-

6

Date of passing of impugned order

23.01.2023

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that there is not material available on record the connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. His incarceration is not warranted. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner.

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is the case of the prosecution that when the vehicle was intercepted, nobody was found there as they had made their escape good. While making search of the vehicle, certain quantity of contraband came to be recovered. The petitioner has been arraigned in this case on the strength of recovery of an ATM card from the vehicle, number and description of which were scratched. As a matter of fact, no transactions took place through the ATM for last many months. It is the case of the petitioner that a report for lost of card had already been given by him. There is no other evidence, direct or indirect, to show any nexus between the petitioner and the alleged recovered contraband. Be that as it may, the observations made above shall not be taken as final finding and the same would not influence the course of trial. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.