Back
2007 Supreme(Raj) 1172
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : J.R.Goel
SUDHIR VISHNOI - Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application 4748 Of 2007
Decided On : 09/05/2007
LAXMAN MADNANI, Praveen Balwada, SURESH DHANWAL
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 —Section 439—Second Bail Application— Applicant charge-sheeted for offence under Section 8/15 r/w Section 8/29 of NDPS Act—Application for bail on plea that accused petitioner had been implicated in case only on statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act and that evidence was not sufficient to connect accused petitioner with crime —Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case including fact that accused petitioner was involved in a matter where huge commercial quantity of contraband poppy straw was recovered and it could not be said at this stage whether case against accused petitioner was groundless, and also keeping in view embargo of Section 37 of NDPS Act and fact that no substantial change in fact situation had taken place after rejection of first bail application, held not proper to allow second bail application. (Para 5)
Facts of the Case:
1. Present second bail application has been filed by Applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 8/15 r/w Section 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. Findings of the Court: The Court held that taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case including fact that accused petitioner was involved in a matter where huge commercial quantity of contraband poppy straw was recovered and it could not be said at this stage whether case against accused petitioner was groundless, and also keeping in view embargo of Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act and fact that no substantial change in fact situation had taken place after rejection of first bail application, held not proper to allow second bail application.
Result: Bail Application rejected.
J. R. GOEL, J.
( 1 ) THIS is second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner in FIR no. 4/04 dated 9. 11. 04 registered at the central Bureau of Narcotics, Kota for the offence under Section 8/15 read with Section 8/29 of the N. D. P. S. Act.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecu-considtor for the Central Bureau of Narcotics and perused the material produced during the course of arguments.
( 3 ) IT was, inter alia, contended that the accused-petitioner is languishing in jail for last about two years and despite of directions for expeditious trial, only five witnesses have so far been examined. It was next contended that co-accused Chhotu Ram has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench and the case of accused-petitioner is at par with that of co-accused Chhotu Ram. It was further contended that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the statement of co-accused balwindra, recorded under Section 67 of the n. D. P. S. Act and that evidence was not sufficient to connect the accused-petitioner with the crime. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in Jaan mohammad alias Janney v. Union of India, 2006 (2) FER 173. and Fraincis Stanly @ Stalin v. Intelligence officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, thiruvananthapuram. , 2007 RCC
( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned Special public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that huge quantity of contraband substance poppy straw, weighing 6040 kg. was recovered from the truck, bearing registration No. RJ14g 3536, which was of commercial quantity and the accused-petitioner was found involved in this crime. It was also contended that not only the co-accused Balwindra, on inquiry under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act categorically stated the involvement of accused-petitioner in this crime but the accused-petitioner himself had made a confessional statement, on inquiry, recorded under section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It was then contended that co-accused Chhotu ram has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench on a different ground, that his name was not taken by the co-accused balwindra, in his first statement recorded under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It was further contended that after rejection of the first bail application, no substantial change in the fact situation has taken place. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad,2001 Cr. LR (SO 566. Babua @ Tazmul Hossain v. The State of orissa, 2001 Cr. LR (SO 195. and Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira. , 2003-04 Cr. LR (SO (Suppl.) 142.
( 5 ) HAVING considered the rival contentions made at the Bar, without making any observation on merit, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances including the fact that accused-petitioner is involved in a matter where huge commercial quantity of contraband poppy-straw was recovered and at this stage it cannot be said that the case against accused-petitioner is groundless, and also keeping in view the embargo of section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act and the fact that no substantial change in the fact situation has taken place after rejection of the first bail application, I do not deem it proper to allow this second bail application. Accordingly this second bail application is rejected. Bail application rejected.
