The court ruled that insufficient investigation into identity leads to granting bail in drug-related cases.

Order

23/07/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.30/2022 dated 01.02.2022 registered at Police Station Bap, District Jodhpur Rural for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case. He submits that the Sub Inspector P.S. Bap, Jodhpur Rural along with his team was patrolling and upon reaching a location near Khidrat, Police Barricade was set up and intensive checking of vehicles was initiated, whereupon they saw a Camper vehicle and on noticing the police barricade, the driver of the said vehicle stopped the vehicle prior to barricade and two persons disembarked and tried to flee, however, they were arrested later and upon asking their name he identified himself to be Rajkumar S/o Birbalram R/o Jamba Ki Dhani and the other person, who fled was named by him as Rama Vishnoi. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of the Investigating Officer- PW1 submits that the petitioner's name is Ram Narayan and he has falsely been implicated in the case while taking his identity as Rama Vishnoi. He submits that the Investigating Officer – PW1 in his statement has stated that at the time of investigation he has not taken on record the call details and has also not investigated whether Rama and Ram Narayan are one and the same person and has also not investigated from the Village, Newa about the person Rama and neither any attestation has been taken from the Sarpanch or Gram Sewak. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the investigating officer – PW3 has stated that it was upon the disclosure information of Rajkumar, the petitioner has been arrested, he also submits that though the co-accused named the other person as Rama Vishnoi, the petitioner has been arrested. He submits that Rama Vishnoi is different person resident of Newa and the petitioner’s name is Ram Narayan, who is resident of Jaisalmer and not Village Newa. He submits that the Investigating Officer – PW3 has stated that he has also not verified the said fact that whether the present petitioner and Rama Vishnoi are two different persons. He submits that the Investigating Officer – PW3 has stated that he has not conducted any investigation in that respect and has not verified the said fact from the village, Newa that whether Ram Narayan and Rama Vishnoi is one and the same person and he has also stated that the documents collected indicate that Ram Narayan is son of Jagdishram Vishnoi and is resident of Jaisalmer. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the person Rama Vishnoi is resident of Village Newa and the petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2023. He further submits that the petitioner does not have any previous criminal antecedents of similar nature and thus, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, however, is not in a position to refute the submissions that the Investigating Officer PW1 and PW3 have not conducted any investigation to verify whether Ram Narayan and Rama Vishnoi are the same person or two distinct individuals. He does not dispute that no call detail records were obtained during the investigation, and no verification was carried out from the village Newa regarding the identity of the person named Rama. Further that no attestation or confirmation was sought from the local authorities such as the Sarpanch or Gram Sewak. Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor does not contest the statement of PW3 that the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure made by co-accused Rajkumar and the petitioner has no previous