Riyasat Ali And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

S.B. CRLMB No.10315/2019 (Riyasat Ali Vs. State) :-

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

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.387/2018 of Police Station Kotwali, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer did not follow the mandatory provisions of law while seizing the drugs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that total 58,500 Tri-SR tablets weighing 23.400 kgs. containing narcotic substance Tramadol recovered from the custody of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the narcotic substance allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner is above commercial quantity and taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the huge quantity of tablets containing narcotic substance recovered from the petitioner which is above commercial quantity, in view of the Section 37 of the NDPS Act 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, the bail application preferred by petitioner Riyasat Ali S/o Gafurdeen under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

S.B. CRLMB No.10695/2019 (Rahul @ Lokesh 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.387/2018 of Police Station Kotwali, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 22 and 29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, huge quantity of drugs containing narcotic substance have been recovered by the police at the instance of co-accused persons viz. Paramjeet Singh @ Sonu, Riyasat Ali @ Rashi, Rajveer Singh and Balwant. It is submitted that the above named co-accused persons, while in police custody, gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act that they procured the said drugs from one Sonu Chhimpa and on the basis of the said information, the police arrested Sonu Chhimpa. It is submitted that Sonu Chhimpa, while in police custody, informed that he procured the said drugs from the petitioner. It is submitted that except the information given by co-accused Sonu Chhimpa, while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner. It is also submitted that though in the charge-sheet, the police have mentioned that they linked the petitioner with co-accused Sonu Chhimpa on the basis of the call details but the Investigating Officer Hanumana Ram, in his court statements recorded as PW-2, has nowhere stated that the said call details, establishing the link of the petitioner with co-accused Sonu Chhimpa or other co-accused persons, are available on record. It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the only evidence against the petitioner available on record is the information given by co-accused Sonu Chhimpa, while in police custody, and it is well settled that any information given by the co-accused in police custody is not admissible as evidence under the law.

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 third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Rahul @ Lokesh S/o Giriraj Gupta shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.387/2018 of Police Station Kotwali, District Sri Ganganagar 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.