MUKNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.375/2020 registered at Police Station Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Ss. 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, during routine nakabandi, SHO PS Gangrar received an information that one white coloured swift car having registration No.RJ06.CF.3950 loaded with huge quantity of contraband would be passing through the Gangrar Highway road. On receiving aforesaid information, SHO PS Gangrar flagged down one white coloured swift car having registration No.RJ06.CF.3950. During search of the offending vehicle, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 78 kgs 500 gms was recovered from three sacks. The petitioner was found sitting on the wheel of the offending vehicle.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was urged that the statements of the Seizure Officer Shivraj have been recorded before competent criminal court as PW-1. Drawing attention of the Court towards the Seizure Officer (PW-1), learned counsel submitted that the SHO PS Gangrar despite having definite information that contraband greater than commercial quantity was being transported in a white coloured swift car having registration No.RJ06.CF.3950 did not make compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel submitted that the Seizure Officer (PW-1) categorically deposed that upon receiving information, he neither lodged an information in writing nor forwarded the grounds for his belief to his superior officials within 72 hours as mandated under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who is in judicial custody deserves to be enlarged on bail solely for the reason that the mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in the present case. Lastly, it was submitted that the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the Seizure Officer (PW-1) during his court statements has stated that despite having specific knowledge/information about contraband greater than commercial quantity being transported in a white coloured swift car having registration No.RJ06.CF.3950, he neither lodged an information in writing nor forwarded the grounds for his belief to his superior officials within 72 hours.