Order

15/01/2025

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS.

2. F.I.R. No. 335/2024 was registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Ajmer for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel contends that it appears from the FIR that leave type substances were allegedly recovered from the petitioner. He submits that the leaves and stalks of cannabis plant are expressly excluded from the definition of Ganja. Petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2024 and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel further places reliance on S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12106/2024 (Vijendra S/o. Mahaveer Prasad), S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4054/2024 ( Smt. Leela W/o. Lage Sh. Bhanwar) & S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.8220/2023 (Amjad S/o. Maksood Ahmed).

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that petitioner has previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act as 6 other cases registered against him. She argued that facility of bail earlier granted to him was misused as he remained indulged in illegal business of drugs. She further argued that the samples taken from the recovered contraband has been sent to FSL and report is still awaited. She submits that only on the basis of FSL report, it can be concluded that the recovered contraband comes within the definition of Ganja or not. As per Section 45 of Evidence Act, the Seizure Officer is not an expert. The petitioner has been convicted in one case under NDPS Act. She thus prays that looking to the previous criminal antecedent, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. She submits that in one case, he has been convicted.

5. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that in appeal, he has been acquitted.

6. From the charge-sheet, it appears that petitioner is deeply involved in drug business as previously there are 6 cases registered against him under the NDPS Act.

7. Previous involvement of the accused-petitioner clearly indicate that he is habitual offender and he is misusing the liberty of bail. In view of the, aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and especially his continuous one after other involvement in NDPS cases, I am not inclined to accept this bail application.

8. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANAND TANWAR /266 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)