RAJESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 266/2018 of Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Ss. 8/21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, on 5/7/2018, Tulsidas Purohit, the then Dy. S.P., Sri Ganganagar, on a secret information, raided shop No. B/37, Vishwakarma Motor Market, infront of V.K. City and seized huge quantity of tablets, capsules and syrups containing narcotic substances above commercial quantity. As per the seizure memo and the other evidence available on record, the owner of the said shop was one Punit Godara son of Ranjeet Godara. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the seizure memo, the Seizure Officer has mentioned that when he enquired about the ownership of the shop in question from the persons present there, one Gurvindra Singh informed that the owner of the shop is Punit Godara, but he rented the said shop to the present petitioner. It is further submitted that after completion of the seizure proceeding, Ranjeet Singh father of Punit Godara was called and asked to take possession of the said shop, but he refused to take possesion of the same. Later on, the police arrested the petitioner on 31/7/2018 and filed charge-sheet against him while alleging that Punit Godara had rented the said shop to him and it is the petitioner, who was selling the drugs seized from the said shop. It is argued that till 6/11/2018, the police have no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commision of crime or to prove that he is the person, who rented the said shop, from where, huge quantity of drugs was recovered, however, on 6/11/2018, for the first time, Punit Godara submitted a photo-stat of the so called rent agreement executed between him and the petitioner and on the basis of the said rent agreement only, the prosecution has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even on 6/11/2018, the original rent agreement was not produced and only a photostat of the same was produced before the I.O. Later on, the original rent agreement was produced by the police in the court, when the trial court asked for it.