HADMAN 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.08/2021, registered at Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur Rural, for the offences under Ss. 8/15, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the contraband Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets 100 mg Clovidol-100 SR tablets totaling to 49,800 tablets and 23 kgs. poppy straw was recovered from the conscious possession of the co-accused persons namely Kalu Ram @ Shankar Lal, Onkar singh @ Madan Singh and Girdhari Singh. Co-accused persons in their statements recorded under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, informed the Investigating Agency that they had procured the aforesaid contraband (greater than commercial quantity) from the hotel which was owned by the co-accused- Dinesh. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons recorded under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, there is no other evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime; further no evidence either direct or circumstantial/corroboratory, in the form of call details/call locations etc., between the petitioner and the co-accused persons is available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner cannot be connected with the alleged crime or implicated in the present case without any evidence only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the co-accused- Dinesh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15891/2022) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 25/4/2023; the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Dinesh who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to accept the bail application. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that though the psychotropic substance and contraband (greater than commercial quantity) was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner, however, co-accused persons namely Kalu Ram, Madan Singh and Girdhari Singh in their statements recorded under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, have told the Investigating Agency that they had procured the said contraband from the present petitioner.