SUNNY GOSWAMI 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.367/2023 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sec. 8/22 of NDPS Act and Sec. 3/25 of the Arms Act. The first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dtd. 23/8/2023. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution on 20/7/2023, at around 6:00 P.M., SHO, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar during routine patrolling of the city, on seeing suspicious activities of the present petitioner and co-accused person namely Pankaj Kumar, restrained them. During search of the bag carried by the co-accused Praveen Kumar, contraband article M.D. weighting 260 gms. was recovered. Whereas, during personal search of the present petitioner contraband article M.D. weighting 25 gms. was recovered from the right pocket of his trousers. Learned counsel submitted that since the contraband weighting 25 gms. MD was recovered from the present petitioner, thus, the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Learned counsel further submitted that before conducting personal search of the present petitioner no notice under Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was given to him by the SHO, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Sriganganagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure provided under Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act has to be meticulously followed looking to the stringent punishment under the NDPS Act.

(3.) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21/7/2023; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude; therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that at the time when the contraband article M.D. weighing 25 gms. was recovered from the present petitioner, he was in the company of the co-accused Praveen Kumar, from whose conscious possession contraband article MD weighing 260 gms. was recovered. Learned counsel submitted that looking to seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that the present bail application may be rejected.