ISHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR No.245/2012 of Police Station Sendara, District Pali for the offence(s) punishable under Sec. (s) 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these second bail application(s) under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, the police has seized huge quantity of poppy straw weighing 5470 kgs from one Sunil and juvenile Shyam Lal while they were transporting the same in a truck. The above-named persons, after their arrest, have informed the police that the narcotic contranband was loaded in the truck by the petitioner and his brother namely Mohan. In the charge-sheet, it is mentioned that the police had asked co-accused Sunil to have conversation with the petitioner and his brother and as per their instructions, co-accused Sunil talked with the petitioner and his brother on their mobile phones. Learned counsel has argued that on the basis of the said evidence i.e. the information supplied by the co-accused persons while in police custody and the so-called conversation between co-accused Sunil and the petitioner, charge-sheet under Sec. 8/29 of the NDPS Act was filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel while inviting my attention towards the statement of the I.O. namely Suresh Choudhary (PW-20) has argued that the said witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the Sim No.8827962515 allegedly used by the petitioner is not in his name and the so-called conversation took place between co-accused Sunil and the petitioner is also not part of the record. It is further argued that when the above-referred sim number is not in the name of the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was in contact with the co-accused, from whom, the narcotic contraband was recovered in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the said evidence, no other evidence is available on record against the petitioner and on the basis of the above evidence, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that since the petitioner is in custody from 27/2/2019 and trial of the case is likely to take time, he may be enlarged on bail.