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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Kishore Kumar S/o Shri Bhikha Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application Nos. 15934, 16343 of 2022
Decided On : 25-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Bhagirath R. Bishnoi, Vijay Bishnoi.
For the Respondent: Mahipal Bishnoi.

Point of Law : violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act is concerned, suffice it to note that present petitioners were duly informed about grounds of their arrest and therefore, it cannot be said that their arrest in connection with offences under various sections of NDPS Act was illegal.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 439 - Arms Act - Section 5/25 - NDPS Act- Sections 8/21, 8/25, 8/29 42, 50, 52 and 55 - Psychotropic/narcotic substance – Possession - An information from reliable sources that present accused is going to sell psychotropic/narcotic substance to one of his customer in vehicle (Scorpio) bearing no. - As per prosecution case, separate notices were served upon both accused persons -After following due process, Scorpio was searched, wherefrom one plastic bag containing white powdery like substance was found which was disclosed to be ‘smack’ - That apart, from left pocket of his pyjama, two mobile phones and one white plastic bag containing smack were also recovered- Whether at stage of bail, it would be prudent for Court to deal with alleged violations of various provisions of Sections of NDPS Act, particularly when trial is going on and evidence in form of various prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses are yet to be recorded - Judgments cited by learned counsel are of no help to petitioners as in all these judgments, trial was already complete, whereas in instant case, petitioners are facing trial. Para 15

Finding of Court :

In present case, from perusal of challan and recovery memo, it is apparent that petitioner while responding to notice given under Section 50(1) of NDPS Act dated, gave his consent for being searched by S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali i.e. Seizure Officer (PW-4) - Prima-facie, compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act had been made - Trial has already commenced,, no final finding is required to be given in this regard - As far as argument with regard to violation of Section 52 of NDPS Act is concerned, suffice it to note that present petitioners were duly informed about grounds of their arrest and it cannot be said that their arrest in connection with offences under various sections of NDPS Act was illegal - No indulgence can be extended to petitioner on this count at stage of bail - As far as argument raised by the learned counsel for petitioner regarding his innocence is concerned, suffice it to note that both petitioners were found at place from where, huge quantity of contraband has been recovered- That apart, during personal search of petitioner, contraband (smack) weighing 10 gms. was recovered from his personal possession - Argument of learned counsel thus deserves to be rejected.

Result : bail applications are rejected.

ORDER :

1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 297/2021, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 NDPS Act and 3/25 Arms Act.

2. The earlier applications for bail were dismissed vide orders dated 21.4.2022 (Second CRLMB No. 3258/2022 Kishore vs. State) and 10.09.2021 (CRLMB No. 12421/2021 Gopal vs. State).

3. As per prosecution story, SHO Brijendra Singh C.I. PS Kotwali, Nagaur received an information from reliable sources that the present accused-Gopal is going to sell psychotropic/narcotic substance to one of his customer in vehicle (Scorpio) bearing no. RJ-23-UB-3022. On receiving aforesaid information, by following the procedure provided under Section 42(1) and (2) of NDPS Act, SHO, PS Kotwali, Nagaur with his team at about 11:50 P.M. reached to the dhani (group of houses in a village) of the petitioners, where they saw two persons standing. Upon seeing the police team, the accused tried to flee in their white Scorpio. The police team, however, succeeded in nabbing both the persons, who on being interrogated disclosed their names as Gopal and Kishore petitioners herein. As per prosecution case, separate notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served upon both the accused persons. After following the due process, the Scorpio was searched, wherefrom one plastic bag containing white powdery like substance was found which was disclosed to be ‘smack’. During personal search of the present petitioners, a loaded pistol along with four live rounds was found from the pyjama worn by petitioner Gopal. That apart, from the left pocket of his pyjama, two mobile phones and one white plastic bag containing smack were also recovered. The psychotropic substance (smack) weighing 10-10 gms. was also recovered from the physical possession of each of the petitioners Kishore and Gopal, whereas 285 gms. smack was recovered from the vehicle (Scorpio). As per the prosecution, the total smack recovered from Scorpio as well as physical possession of the petitioners was 305 gms.

4. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners before competent criminal court for the offences under Sections 8/21, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and Section 5/25 of the Arms Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention towards the challan papers, recovery memo and statement of Seizure Officer Brijendra Singh (PW-4), submitted that the entire procedure of search and seizure conducted by the Seizure Officer is in gross violation of Sections 42, 50, 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed upon the crossexamination of the Seizure Officer, Brijendra Singh (PW-4), whose testimony is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

    ^^;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01] 02] 03] 04 o 05 bu ikapksa gh isdsV ij Fkkus ykus ds ckn eky[kkuk esa tek djokus ls iwoZ /kkjk 55 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr vkfVZdy iqu% fjlhy djus dh lhy vafdr ugha gS o uk gh phV psik ij fjlhy dh uewuk lhy L;kgh vafdr gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01] 02] 03] 04 o 5 ij fjlhy dh phV psik Hkh ugha fpidkbZ gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 01 yxk;r 05 dks Fkkus esa tek djokus ls iwoZ èkkjk 55 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV dh dk;Zokgh ds vuqlkj eky[kkuk esa tek ugha djok;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkfVZdy 07 ds eSdsfute dks pSd djus ds fy, Qk;j dj ds ekSds ij pSd ugha fd;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ekSds ij lhy 'kqnk vkfVZdy ij fpidk;h gqbZ phV psik o Fkkuk esa ykdj iqu% fjlhy ds nkSjku rS;kj dh xbZ phV psik dh f}rh; çfr i=koyh esa ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku dks èkkjk 50 ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds uksfVl esa 50¼5½ ds rgr eSus lpZ dh dk;Zokgh dh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd /kkjk 50 ¼05½ ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr esjs }kjk fd;s x;s lpZ es èkkjk 50¼6½ ,uŒMhŒihŒ,lŒ ,DV ds rgr uksfVl dh çfr 72 ?kaVs Hkhrj mPp vfèkdkjh dks Hkstuk vkKkid çkoèkku gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd xokg us i=koyh ns[kdj crk;k dh èkkjk 50 ,











      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      Judicial Analysis

      SupremeToday

      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