Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RJ) 19217
(1 of 2) HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1589/2024 Kamal Chavlani @ Kamal Sindhi S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Chavlani, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 11/455, Malviya Nagar, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur, Presently Plot No. 136, Sindhi Colony, Khawas Ji Ka Bag, Durgapura, Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Vivek Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
An accused person is entitled to bail if he can show that he has been falsely implicated in the case or that the recovery of incriminating material was made without a valid search warrant.
Headnote:
BAIL - RAJASTHAN EXCISE ACT - SECTION 19, 20 AND 54 - BAIL GRANTED - ACCUSED IMPLICATED FALSELY - NO SEARCH WARRANT OBTAINED - TRIAL MAY TAKE CONSIDERABLE TIME - HABITUAL OFFENDER - BAIL GRANTED CONSIDERING CHARGE-SHEET FILED AND CO-ACCUSED ENLARGED ON BAIL
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.79/2024 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Sections 19, 20 and 54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. The accused-petitioner was allegedly found in possession of liquor without a valid license. The accused-petitioner claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case and that the recovery of liquor was made from his house without a search warrant under Section 47 of the Excise Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused-petitioner had been falsely implicated in the case and that the recovery of liquor was made from his house without a search warrant under Section 47 of the Excise Act. The court also noted that the trial of the case may take considerable time and that the accused-petitioner had already been in custody since 23.01.2024.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner was falsely implicated in the case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused-petitioner was entitled to bail as he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the recovery of liquor was made from his house without a search warrant under Section 47 of the Excise Act. The court also noted that the trial of the case may take considerable time and that the accused-petitioner had already been in custody since 23.01.2024.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and ordered that the accused-petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.
Order
01/03/2024
1. Instant interim bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for releasing him on interim bail for a period of six months on ground of ailment of his wife Smt. Vishu Bai. Petitioner is being tried for an offense punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that petitioner’s wife is suffering from a serious disease of spinal T.B. and having a tumor in her spinal cord, for which the doctors has advised possibility of an operation. Being a husband, petitioner is required to stay with his wife for her further treatment. He has invited attention of the court towards various medical treatment record of wife of the petitioner. He further submits that in order to demonstrate his bona fides, applicant is prepared to deposit cash money “as security” in the amount deemed appropriate by the court. Lastly, he prayed that in view of the above circumstances petitioner may be granted benefit of interim bail for six months.
3. The Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the interim bail application asserting that there is a possibility that the petitioner may flee and abscond if interim bail is granted to him. Other family members of applicant can take care of his ailing wife. Further, there is no emergency which requires physical presence of the applicant himself. He thus, prayed that having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant, the interim bail application be rejected.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, learned public prosecutor and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
5. The fact of the illness of petitioner's wife is not disputed rather it is corroborated by factual report submitted by respondent-State.
6. Her condition is serious. It is noticed that due to spinal T.B. and tumor in her spinal cord, she is unable to move and sit. At present, she is undergoing treatment at Smt. Vijya Raje Scindia, District Hospital, Neemach (M.P.). Petitioner has produced a prescription of doctor wherein it is advised by the doctor for further treatment at higher centers as soon as possible. The doctor has also mentioned the possibility of surgical intervention.
7. In compliance of Court's earlier order, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report of ailment of wife of petitioner and his family members. Furthermore, wife of petitioner has to be given proper and adequate treatment as well as care.
8. Parents of the petitioner are aged persons and he has no brother and sisters.
9. Based on the aforementioned facts, being husband of patient and to enable the petitioner to provide proper medical care and emotional support to his severely ill wife, this Court is of the view that on the humanitarian ground and in the interest of the justice, the present interim bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be allowed and he be released on interim bail for a period of three weeks on the ground of the ailment his wife, Smt.
Vishnu Bai.
10. Consequently, present interim bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Suraj Singh S/o Madan Singh Sondhiya Rajput, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 92/2023 of Police Station Sadar, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, be released on interim bail for a period of 21 days (three weeks) from the date of his actual release from the jail. This is subject to the condition that the petitioner submits a demand draft of a national level bank amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- made in favour of the trial court. Additionally, the petitioner shall also furnish a personal bond to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sound sureties, each worth Rs. 1,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court. Out of which, preferably one surety will be a relative of the applicant possessing documents of immovable property.
11. The petitioner will also submit the documents of the treatment given to the patient during the period of interim bail and only after t
