LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-213

SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 06, 2019
SANTOSH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

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 connection with FIR No. 264/2018 of Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per prosecution story, the police had recovered 105.100 kgs of poppy straw from co-accused Prahlad which he was transporting in a vehicle. At the time of his arrest, the co-accused Prahlad gave information that said narcotic contraband was procured by him from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that police have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sec. 8/29 of NDPS Act while concluding that co-accused Prahlad had procured narcotic contraband from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of Investigating Officer Narayan (PW-1) have now been recorded before the trial court wherein he has specifically admitted that except the information given by the co-accused Prahalad, while in police custody, that he procured the narcotic contraband from the petitioner, no other evidence in relation to connection of the petitioner with co-accused Prahlad was collected by the police during police investigation. It is also admitted by the Investigating Officer PW-1 that the petitioner did not give any information under Sec. 27 of Indian Evidence Act after his arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when there is specific admission of the Investigating Officer to this effect that no evidence is available on record which establishes the connection of the petitioner with co-accused Prahlad from whom, narcotic contraband was recovered, it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.