NARPAT RAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arrested pursuant to investigation into FIR No.380/2016 of Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for offence under Section 8 / 15 of the NDPS Act, petitioner has made this third attempt for seeking bail. First bail application of the petitioner bearing No.7022/2017 was dismissed on 25th of August, 2017.

(2.) Subsequently, at the behest of petitioner, second bail application bearing No.8929/2017 was preferred after submission of charge-sheet against him and one other accomplice Ganpat under Section 8 / 15 , 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The said application was also rejected on 26th of October, 2017.

(3.) Arguing on this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that now charges have been framed against petitioner by learned trial Court. Reiterating his arguments, which he has advanced while pressing his second bail application, it is urged by learned counsel that other co-accused Ganpat from whose possession contraband is recovered has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench on 26 th of October, 2016 while considering his bail application No.9933/2016. It is submitted by learned counsel that total contraband poppy straw recovered in the matter was projected by the prosecution as above commercial quantity but in fact while considering bail plea of co-accused Ganpat, half of its share belonging to Ganpat Coordinate Bench has granted him bail with the observations that same is below commercial quantity. It is also submitted by learned counsel that Seizure Officer, after recovering eight bags containing poppy straw from the conscious possession of co-accused Ganpat weighing 71 kgs 200gms, mixed the entire seized contraband, and thereafter, drawn sample of 1kg from the mixture in utter disregard to the instructions in this behalf. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that laconic procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer while drawing samples has substantially diminished chances of conviction of the petitioner as well as co-accused for graver offence of possessing/transporting/using commercial quantity of poppy straw. In support thereof, learned counsel has placed reliance on decisions in Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan [2014 (2) WLN 394 (Raj.)] and Nagu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan [2016(3) WLN 310 (Raj.)]. Learned counsel would contend that of course there are certain other cases pending against the petitioner for various offences under IPC but all those cases are under trial and so far conviction has not been recorded in any case. Lastly, learned counsel contends that prosecution has cited eighteen witnesses and so far evidence has not commenced, therefore, conclusion of trial is not offing in near future and as such petitioner, who is in custody since 19th of July, 2017, may be released on bail.