YOGESH SUTHAR 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 F.I.R. No.158/2021 registered at Police Station Bigod, Dist. Bhilwara, for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused person namely Bharat Kumar Dhakad in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3097/2024 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 18/3/2024. The order dtd. 18/3/2024 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "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.158/2021 registered at Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, for offence under Sec. 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

(2.) Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 29/9/2021 at around 06.50 pm., during routine patrolling, a team of police station Bigod found an Alto Car having registration No.RJ-09-CC-9610 wherein two persons were found sitting. Near the car, two other persons were also found sitting on different motorcycles who, upon seeing the police party, tried to flee but they were stopped and upon interrogation, the driver of the car disclosed his name to be Yogesh Suthar and the person sitting on the front passenger seat disclosed his name to be Bharat Dhakar (present petitioner). On enquiry being made, Yogesh and the present petitioner disclosed that they were transporting contraband (poppy husk/straw) in the car for handing over the same to Ramkishan Gurjar and Manoj Dhakar was escorting them on his motorcycle. After search being made, police recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 68.300 Kgs. in five plastic bags from the trunk of the car. The petitioner was arrested on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29/9/2021. He further submitted that out of total 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 2 years and 5 months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future.

(3.) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last 2 years and 5 months, out of total 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 8 witnesses have been examined till date. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.