Shrawan Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.164/2018, registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14612/2023) was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2024.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 575 kgs. and 190 gms. was recovered from a truck bearing registration No. RJ-14-GC-2499. Co-accused-Sharwan Bheel was found sitting on the wheel of the offending vehicle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending truck whereas, as a matter of fact, the offending truck had already been sold by him to one- Dinesh S/o Hapu Ram through a sale agreement dated 22.09.2018, and he had no knowledge about the improper usage/illegal transportation of the contraband (greater than commercial quantity) in the offending truck. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused- Sharwan Bheel. Co-accused- Sharwan Bheel during his police custody, had divulged an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that the recovered contraband was to be supplied by him to the present petitioner and co-accused- Bharat Ram. It was contended that co-accused- Bharat Ram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9993/2019) has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused- Bharat Ram who has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that co-accused-Sharwan Bheel during his police custody, divulged an information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein he has clearly named the present petitioner as a person to whom, the said recovered contraband was to be supplied.

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from the statements of co-accused- Sharwan Bheel, the other connecting evidences are also available on record indicating the petitioner’s involvement in commission of the alleged crime. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused- Bharat Ram has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the challan papers, this Court prima facie finds that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused- Bharat Ram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9993/2019) who has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019. This Court also prima facie finds that though as per the prosecution, the petitioner is the registered owner of the offending truck, however, the documents available on record indicate that the petitioner had already sold the offending truck, through a sale agreement dated 22.09.2018 to one- Dinesh S/o Hapu Ram, who had expired on 03.11.2018. This Court also prima facie finds that the present petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

In the prima facie of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are duly satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shrawan Vishnoi S/o Bhagu Ram Vishnoi arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.164/2018, registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.