PRAVEEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This third application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.49/2021 registered at Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner, for offence under Sec. 8/22 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is aged about 23 years is in judicial custody since 1/3/2021. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, on 1/3/2021 during routine round of the Mithadiya Road, the police on seeing suspicious activities of the petitioner, stopped him and recovered psychotropic substance (1200 tramadol hydrochloride tablets) weighing 397.2 gms. from the pockets of trousers worn by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the entire seizure proceedings suffer from illegality. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as a matter of fact, he was taken into custody by the police on 28/2/2021 i.e. prior to the date of alleged recovery of aforesaid contraband. Learned counsel submitted that this incident had been recorded in CCTV footage of the shop of one Jugal Kishore Khichad situated near the police station. Learned counsel submitted that the police after taking the petitioner into custody on 28/2/2021 did not disclose this fact to anyone. As a matter of fact, this fact has never been disclosed in the charge-sheet or any other documents including Roznamcha of the police. Learned counsel contended that the competent criminal court repeatedly directed investigating agency to produce/decode map and CD of CCTV camera recording but for the reasons best known to investigating agency, the same was produced only in the month of December 2023, which indicate that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution has tried to mislead the competent criminal court.

(2.) Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 1/3/2021. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No(s).915 of 2023 and Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha (Special Leave Petition(Criminal) No(s).4169/23, learned counsel submitted that the delay in trial can be considered as a valid ground for releasing the petitioner on bail particularly when there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay in trial is attributable to the petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds sufficient merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as to why the presence of the petitioner in the police station on 28/2/2021 has not been disclosed by the investigating agency either in the charge-sheet or any other documents including Roznamcha etc. Had the CCTV footage, procured from the shop of Jugal Kishore Khichad not been brought on record, the presence of the petitioner in the police station on 28/2/2021 would not have come to surface. It is also a matter to be considered/re-assured by the trial court during the course of trial as to whether 1200 tramadol hydrochloride tablets weighing 397.2 gms. could be carried by a person in two pockets of a trousers or not. This Court prima facie finds that the seizure proceedings in the present case are under clouds thereby affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.

(3.) This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner who is aged about 23 years is in judicial custody since 1/3/2021 and the rigours of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the third bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-