High CourtsSingle Bench

Sukha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 14 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 RAJ CK 0064

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldeep Mathur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 8, 22, 25, 29, 37, 67
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 5154 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 682 words

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This 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.172/2023, registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 8/22, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act.

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 submitted that the psychotropic substance greater than commercial quantity was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that psychotropic substance NRX AlpraZolam Tablets I.P. 0.5 mg Tablets Alpazar of 0.5 mg of quantity 16200 tablets and NRX Tramadol Hydrocholoride tablets USP 100mg CLOVEDOL 100 SR quantity 34000 tablets, (total 50,200 tablets greater than commercial quantity weighing 12 kg. 976 gms.) were recovered from the co-accused Rajpal Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Rajpal Singh in his disclosure statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has stated that he had procured the psychotropic substance from the present petitioner. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused- Rajpal Singh. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of the co-accused Rajpal Singh, there is no other direct evidence available on record to indicate the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the investigating officer- Ram Singh (PW-1) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the Investigation Officer Ram Singh (PW-1), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of investigation, investigating officer did not find any material indicating presence of a live connection between the petitioner and the co-accused Rajpal Singh.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that the present bail application may be rejected.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the statements of the Investigating Officer- Ram Singh (PW-1), this Court prima facie finds that during the course of investigation, investigating officer did not find any incriminating material indicating complicity of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused Rajpal Singh from whom psychotropic substance greater than commercial quantity was recovered. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail.

In the opinion of this Court the twin condition mentioned under Section 37 of 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 bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sukha Ram S/o Hameera Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.172/2023, registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar 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.