[2025:RJ-JD:47637]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 11296/2025 Gori Lal S/o Sukhdev, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Amarkunwa, Police Station Ranpur, District Kota, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail Begu Dist. Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP Mr. Prabhulal Kumawat, Dy.S.P., Dungarpur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/11/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number 153/2023

2. Concerned Police Station Rawatbhata 3. District Chittorgarh

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act

5. Offences added, if any -

6. Date of passing of impugned03.09.2025 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and conferred with the Investigating Officer - Prabhulal as well as gone through the niceties of the matter.

5. On previous occasion, this Court observed certain incongruence in the case of the prosecution and thus, passed the following order:-

"1. In a very bizarre manner of investigation the Dy.S.P. Prabhulal Kumawat arrested the applicant under a colourable exercise of power and flouting the ordinary directions of investigation. The fact situation of this case are that two accused Chouthmal and Toofan were apprehended by the police on the allegation of trafficking illicit contraband. It is said that one person fled away form the spot. The spontaneous and instantaneous reply of the afore-mentioned two accused Chouthmal and Toofan was that the person who made his escape good from the spot was one Mukesh Gurjar, there was no prefix or suffix means no identity, age or place of ordinary residence. The two above mentioned accused were sent to judicial custody.

It is apprised to this Court that the investigating officer went to jail and shown a photograph of one person to the imprisoned accused to know whether this was the man who fled away from the spot whose name was Mukesh Gurjar and in response to which it is claimed that the accused denied instead it was further disclosed that the accused fled from the spot was not Mukesh Gurjar but Gorilal who is the present applicant. Strangely on the very same day the applicant was in the clutches of the police and he was shown to the accused to make it clear that the person fled away from the spot was the present applicant. The legitimate question which may arise in the mind of any person of common prudence as to how the Investigating Officer could able to get a photograph of a person whose particulars were not available on record then how would he come to know the identity of the accused Mukesh and then got his picture and shown to the accused. The next question would arise how the applicant was arrested casually without fixing of his culpability and then brought before the accused Chouthmal and Toofan to get confirmation of his identify as an accused who fled away from the spot. When asked whether the task of showing the photograph of Mukesh to the accused in jail and bringing the applicant in jail premises to confront him with the already arrested accused persons, the investigating officer had any other material to book and arres