SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 2154

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Jakir Khan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 9941 and 9363 of 2014.
Decided On : 16-12-2014

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Raju Chaynan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 8/15 – Application for grant of Anticipatory Bail filed by the petitioner who is 80 years old lady and she has been named in F.I.R. only because she is registered owner of the vehicle – Petitioner was neither present at the time when the contraband was recovered nor she had any knowledge about the contraband – Bail granted to petitioner with conditions – Bail application allowed.

JUDGMENT

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

2. An FIR No.142/2014 has been registered at Police Station, Rohat, District Pali against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he does not want to press S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9941/2014 preferred on behalf of petitioner-Jakir Khan at this stage. However, seeks liberty to file a fresh bail application after filing of chargesheet.

4. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9941/2014 preferred by petitioner-Jakir Khan S/o Mohd. Nizam Khan under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not pressed at this stage with the liberty as prayed for.

5. So far as bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9363/2014) preferred on behalf of petitioner-Salma is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on her behalf has submitted that the petitioner-Salma is 80 years old lady and she has been named in the FIR only because she is registered owner of the vehicle. It is submitted that the petitioner-Salma was neither present at the time when the contraband was recovered nor she had any knowledge about contraband.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the petitioner-Salma, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner-Salma under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner-Salma W/o Mohd. Nizam Khan in FIR No.142/2014, Police Station, Rohat, District Pali, she shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureities of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i) She shall make herself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

(iii) She shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
Bail application allowed.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top