KHETA RAM 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 FIR No.44/2021 registered at Police Station Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that contraband (poppy husk/straw) contained in 22 bags, weighing 402 kg 100 gms., was recovered from an abandoned vehicle (Scorpio) bearing No.GJ-18 BF-4343. Learned counsel further submitted that during the course of the investigation, co-accused Dashrath Singh was arrested, who in his statement under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, had named the present petitioner. It was vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused without any other direct or corroboratory evidence such as mobile calls details etc. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; challan in the case has already been filed; 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.

(2.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was unable to show any evidence available on record either direct or corroboratory, to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that in view of the statement of the co-accused Dashrath Singh, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged crime and thus, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact that except the statements of co-accused Dashrath Singh, there is no material available on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offences. Looking into the above view, the rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.