ANNA 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 F.I.R. No.105/2023, registered at Police Station Sivana, District Barmer, for offence under Sec. 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act, Ss. 3/25 of the Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that that co-accused Khinya Ram from whose conscious possession the contraband (poppy husk / straw) greater than commercial quantity was recovered, has named the present petitioner in the information divulged by him under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case by the Investigating Agency solely on the basis of statements given by co-accused Khinya Ram. It was urged that the petitioner cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act unless there is corresponding recovery or incriminating evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused Rana Ram and Achla Ram @ Achal Singh @ Baba have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 4/12/2023 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.14797/2023 and 13535/2023 respectively, and therefore, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail. Challan of the case has already been filed. It was submitted that 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. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, and after perusing the challan papers, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the statements given by co-accused under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This Court also prima facie finds that apart from the statements of co-accused Khinya Ram, there is no other evidence in the form of mobile phone / WhatsApp chat / mobile messages etc, available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. This Court also prima facie finds that above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.