DOLARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.217/2019, registered at Police Station Sendra, District Pali, for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is a registered owner of the offending vehicle, however, he had no knowledge about the contraband being transported in the vehicle by co-accused persons namely Shrawan and Bhanwar Lal. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of the Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the witnesses in their testimonies had stated that they did not find any telephonic call or conversation between the petitioner and co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, the offending vehicle had already been sold by the petitioner to co-accused persons and therefore, he could not have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of co-accused persons. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the petitioner is a registered owner of the offending vehicle and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the accusations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. He thus, implored the Court that the bail application of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that co-accused persons namely Shrawan and Bhanwar Lal, from whose conscious possession contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered, have clearly stated in their statements during investigation that the contraband was being transported in the offending vehicle with due knowledge and permission of the present petitioner. This Court also does not find any material available on record indicating the fact that the offending vehicle has already been sold by the petitioner to some other person.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid discussion, without commenting on the merits of the evidence collected so far, this Court has reason to believe that the petitioner has failed to cross the hurdle of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act and is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application is dismissed.