IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Goverdhan Ram Nephew/o Sh. Pancha Ram - Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 872/2022 With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4360/2022, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5395/2022
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 120B,380,457 – Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 439 - Indian Evidence Act,1872 - Section 27,114 – Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances Act,1985 - Sections 8,15,29,37,52,52A – Preventive of damage to public property act,1984 - Section 3 - Punishment of criminal conspiracy – Theft in dwelling house, etc – Special powers of High court or court of session regarding bail – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Prohibition of certain operations – Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – Held, In this scenario, this Court observes that since present matter is of a serious economic offence, abundant caution ought to have been taken by prosecution in establishing direct nexus between recovered contraband of 7 kilo 800 grams and stolen contraband of 10 quintal - In absence of same, this Court expresses its anguish over the lackadaisical approach in dealing with present case – Bail application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. These applications for bail under Section 439 CrPC have been filed by petitioners who were arrested in connection with FIR No.262/2021 registered at Police Station Pachpadra, District District Barmer, for offence under Sections 457, 380, 120B IPC read with Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act.
2. Since all the three bail applications are emanating from the same FIR (No.62/2021), with the consent of the parties, they are being decided by this common order.
3. The matter has a chequered history. In order to unfold layers of the present case, this Court is required to date back to two other cases, in FIR No.106/2019 and 177/2019 lodged on 04.06.2019 and 23.08.2019 respectively at Pachpadra Police Station, both for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. In said cases, 10 quintal of Poppy Husk was recovered cumulatively and was kept in the storage house of the Pachpadra Police Station. Accordingly, the said contraband was lying in the storage house since it was recovered.
4. Eventually, the charge of the storage house of the Police Station Pachpadra was handed over by one Head Constable to the other Head Constable. While taking the charge, the taking over Head Constable in the course of checking the stored items, found that the bags containing 10 quintal of Poppy Husk, recovered in the aforesaid cases, were missing from the storage house. On the same day i.e. on 23.04.2021, this finding of theft from the storage house was mentioned as report No.20 in the Roznamcha of the Police Station Pachpadra, however, no separate case was registered in this regard.
5. Following this incident, the S.P. Barmer initiated an inquiry, wherein an inquiry report dated 01.09.2021 was made by the Deputy S.P. Balotra, as per which it came to be known that the contraband was lying in the storage house of the outpost Pachpadra Police Station, some unknown persons have broken the backside window of the said room and have stolen the property containing contraband weighing 10 quintal.
6. On the basis of aforesaid inquiry report, an FIR bearing No.262/2021 dated 11.09.2021 came to be lodged under Sections 457, 380 IPC. Interestingly, the investigation in the said FIR was commenced only when one fine day i.e. on 24.09.2021, the S.P. Barmer came across a Press Note on WhatsApp. As per said Press Note, he came to realize that another offence of theft has occurred, which came to be lodged at the Police Station Shergarh wherein the delinquent, namely Shiv Prakash, is the accused person, who was in custody in connection with stealing of electrical items. This incident said to have occurred in the month of January 2021 and the delinquent had allegedly confessed before the investigating agency of the Police Station Shergarh about committing the offence of theft of Poppy Husk from Pachpadra outpost and that he has broken window of the Police chowki Pachpadra for 7-8 times.
7. There is nothing new in this aspect of which this Court takes special note that maximum offences of theft are occurred by trespassing without which an offence of theft can not be committed, however, the investigating agency hurriedly detained the delinquent Shiv Prakash and implicated him in the present matter. During the interrogation, the investigating agency has claimed that the delinquent Shiv Prakash has confessed his crime and gave information that he along with 10 other persons had stolen 10 quintal contraband from the storage house of the Police Station Pachpadra. It is noteworthy that the confession was made by him while in Police custody.
8. On the basis of his confession taken in Police custody and the information received under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the investigating agency has filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 457, 380, 120B IPC, Section 3 of the PDPP Act and Sections 8/15, 29 of the NDPS Act, against 10 accused persons including Shiv Prakash and the present petitioners for offence under Section 411 IPC and Section 8/15, 29
Ram Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics: AIR 2011 SC 2490
Sehr Vs State of Karnataka: AIR 2010 SC 1974
The court established that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding seizure and sampling, can create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, warranting ....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and contradictions in evidence undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the reversal of conviction.
Strict compliance with the statutory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in cases involving the seizure and disposal of contraband, is crucial to establish the integrity of the evidence and the ....
The prosecution's failure to follow mandatory procedures for search and seizure under the NDPS Act vitiated the trial, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, notably Section 52A, is essential to validate convictions; failure to produce seized contraband is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Unless and until prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt appellant could not have been convicted.
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of contraband are critical in bail considerations, and procedural violations do not automatically warrant bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.