LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present fifth bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.63/2021, Police Station Shree Vijaynagar, District Shri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sec. 8/15 of NDPS Act. The fourth bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 20/4/2023 by this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. After rejection of the fourth bail application on 20/4/2023, statements of four prosecution witnesses have been recorded before learned trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statements recorded before learned trial Court, it has come on record that the contraband drugs were not recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. He further submits that there is material contradiction between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned public prosecutor submits that in the statement of PW.1 Rameshwar Lal who is the seizure officer, it has come on record that the car in which the petitioner was travelling, the recovery has been effected of 59 kg of contraband which is beyond the commercial quantity. He further submits that in the statements of all four prosecution witnesses, it has come on record that the contraband was recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not entitled to enlarge on bail at this stage. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the statements of four prosecution witnesses recorded before learned trial Court.

(3.) In all four witnesses including the statement of Rameshwar Lal (PW.1) who is seizure officer, it has come on record that the contraband was recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. The contraband is beyond the commercial quantity. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence and considering the fact that huge quantity of the contraband drugs recovered in the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant fifth bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the fifth bail application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.