The court granted bail on the grounds of insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the contraband and absence of criminal antecedents.

Order :

1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.136/2010 registered at Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 04.07.2010, SHO, P.S. Badi Sadri recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 2445 Kgs and 500 Gms from an abandoned truck having registration No.RJ19-G-9470. The offending vehicle was registered in the name of one Shri Manaram. The registered owner of the offending vehicle Shri Manaram on 20.07.2010 informed the investigating agency that on 20.04.2009, he had sold the offending vehicle to the present petitioner through an agreement to sale in consideration of Rs.3,21,000/-.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the various documents and the statements of one Ghanshyam Bhai and Jayram Bhai attached with the case file, learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact the original owner of the truck was Desai Brother Ltd., Jodhpur. The concerned employees of the Desai Brother Ltd. only on 05.06.2009, sold and handed over the offending vehicle to Shri Manaram. Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the statements of one Akbar Ali, who had notarized the alleged sale agreement between Shri Manaram and the present petitioner to contend that at the time when the said document was being notarized, the petitioner was not present at the notary public. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been made an escape goat in the present case to save Shri Manaram.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the registered owner of the offending vehicle is Shri Manaram. He was also not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how when the offending vehicle was handed over to Shri Manaram on 05.06.2009 by its original owner, he had already sold and handed over the same to the present petitioner on 20.04.2009. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the registered owner of the offending vehicle Shri Manaram has not even been made an accused in the present case.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; on the date of recovery, the petitioner was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle; prima facie a sale to agreement in relation to offending vehicle could not have been entered between the petitioner and Shri Manaram prior to the date when the same was handed over to Shri Manaram by its original registered owner i.e. Desai Brothers Ltd. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kishna Ram S/o Shri Sena Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.136/2010 registered at Police Station Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of