Shaukin vs State Of Rajasthan

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.394/2018 of Police Station Balotra, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police apprehended the co-accused persons viz. Ramniwas, Raju Ram, Mukesh and Mangilal while they were transporting huge quantity of narcotic contraband poppy straw in a truck. It is submitted that at the time of seizure of the said narcotic contraband, the above named co-accused persons informed the police that they procured the said narcotic contraband from the petitioner and another co-accused Rahul @ Rawal Ram and on the basis of the said information, the police arrested the petitioner and after investigation filed charge-sheet against him for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that except the information given by the above named co-accused persons while in police custody no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner by this Court, the statements of Investigating Officer Harchand Ram have been recorded before the trial court as PW-2, wherein he has admitted that except the information given by the above named co-accused persons while in police custody, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner. It is submitted that the police did not collect the call details to prove that the petitioner in any manner was in contact with the co-accused persons, who were apprehended with huge quantity of narcotic contraband poppy straw, either before or after the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only evidence available against the petitioner is the information given by the above named co-accused persons while in police custody whereas it is settled that any information given by the co-accused persons while in police custody is not a piece of evidence which is admissible under the law.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the statements of Investigating Officer Harchand Ram recorded before the trial court as PW-2, wherein he has admitted that the only evidence against the petitioner is the information given by the co-accused persons, who were apprehended with the huge quantity of narocit contraband poppy straw, 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 second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Shaukin S/o Ghisa Lal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.394/2018 of Police Station Balotra, District Barmer 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.