VINOD KUMAR 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.304/2020, Police Station Bap, District Jodhpur, for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution, contraband of 34 boxes containing 20,400 Tramadol Hydrochloride 100mg tablets were recovered from co-accused Joginder Singh by the SHO, P.S. Baap on 10/12/2020 during nakabandi, being transported in Bus No. RJ-19 PB-6767. Joginder Singh in his information under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that he got the contraband from Vikas and Gordhan. Thereupon, Vikas s/o Shankar Lal, in his disclosure statement under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the petitioner through his mobile no. 7665076311 called him at his mobile no. 9579013982 stating that his old buyer, Joginder Singh (mobile no. 7347299660) will be coming to Phalodi to purchase the contraband. Vikas s/o Shankar Lal and Madan alias Kaju s/o Omprakash, on being asked by the present petitioner made WhatsApp calls for arranging the contraband from Mangi Lal s/o Kanwar Lal and sold/handed the same over to co-accused Joginder Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of co-accused (Vikas s/o Shankar Lal) without any corroboratory evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Investigating Officer (Rakesh Khayalia, C.I.) in statements before the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Phalodi, District Jodhpur stated that no sim card or mobile was recovered from Vinod. Learned counsel submitted that as per the Investigating Officer, the certified CDR and CIF ID of mobile no. 7665076311 along with 65-B certificate were not available on record. It was vehemently urged that in there is hardly any evidence to implicate the petitioner in the present case. The accused petitioner is in custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.