SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 136/2018 of Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this third bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, two persons viz. Mehboob and Raju were apprehended by the police while transporting huge quantity of poppy straw in a truck being No. MP-09-HC-7821 on 12/9/2018. It is alleged that Mehboob and Raju disclosed that the said narcotic contraband was procured by them from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that except the said information given by those co-accused persons viz. Mehboob and Raju no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-2 Virendra has been recorded before the trial court, wherein he has specifically stated that during the course of investigation he was not able to collect any evidence which connects the petitioner directly with the commission of crime. It is also admitted by PW-2 Virendra that in the FIR, arrest memo and parcha bayan name of the petitioner has not been figured. The Investigating Officer also admitted that from the documents seized by the police at the place of incident the connection of the petitioner with the commission of crime is not established. The Investigating Officer has further admitted that during the course of investigation he was not able to collect any evidence regarding the fact that the petitioner had provided narcotic contraband to the co-accused persons viz. Mehboob and Raju or they were in contact with the petitioner in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the statements of Investigating Officer PW-2 Virendra, it is clear that no definite conclusive evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and in the absence of it, it will be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner.