(1 of 4)

[CRLMB-5986/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5986/2021

Banka Ram @ Vikky S/o Sh. Kosal Ram, Aged About 38 Years,

Surte Ka Tala, Taratra, Dist. Barmer. (Lodged In Sub Jail,

Aburoad).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi, through Cisco

Webex

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. SK Bhati, PP

Ms. Anita Reni, IO (SHO, Police

Station Kotwali, District Sirohi)

present in person

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

(VACATION JUDGE)

ORDER

11/06/2021

1.

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner

under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR

No.391/2020 Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi for the

offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invites Court’s attention

towards the contents of the FIR and points out that the co-

accused Sanjay Kumar, who was apprehended at site has

disclosed the name of the driver of the Scorpio vehicle as “Vikram

Siyag, resident of Bayatu, District Barmer”, whereas, the

prosecution has apprehended petitioner, who is admittedly “Banka

Ram @ Vikky S/o Kosal Ram, by caste Siyag Jat, resident of Surte

Ka Tala, Taratra, District Barmer”.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMB-5986/2021]

3.

Learned counsel further highlights that the said Sanjay

Kumar, at the time of interception and apprehension on 23.8.2020

had not only disclosed the name of Vikram Siyag, but he has also

deposed at the very first instance that they were transporting the

contraband substance to the residence of Vikram Siyag at Baytu.

He argues that later on, while recording the statement of said

Sanjay Kumar under Section 27 of the Evidence Act the police has

coerced him to modify/change his version so that the petitioner

can be roped in.

4.

Learned counsel argues that the prosecution has falsely

implicated the petitioner and he is innocent.

5.

It has also been informed that the co-accused Mukesh

Paliwal, who was allegedly escorting the vehicle has already been

enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.12.2020 passed in SB Cr.

Misc. Bail Application No.14322/2020 (Mukesh Paliwal Vs. State of

Rajasthan)

6.

Mr. Bhati, learned PP, however, opposes the petitioner’s

prayer for release on bail.

7.

Pursuant to order dated 8.6.2021 passed by this Court, the

Investigating Officer is present in person. She is not in a position

to satisfy the Court as to how the name of the present petitioner

has been included. She has further failed to satisfy the Court

about any incriminating evidence pointing towards petitioner’s

involvement in the offence.

8.

There is no other material such as call log record, mobile

location or any document etc. to show petitioner’s involvement or

the fact that the present petitioner Banka Ram @ Vikky is also

known as Vikram Siyag @ Vikky. The sole piece of evidence

(3 of 4)

[CRLMB-5986/2021]

against the petitioner is statement of Sanjay Kumar recorded

subsequently.

9.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, as there are two

versions of Sanjay Kumar in relation to driver of the vehicle, in

normal circumstances, the statement given at the first instance

should be given more credence, according to which one Vikram

Siyag @ Vikky, resident of Bayatu was the driver.

10.

It is also to be noted that there is no material to show that

the Investigating Officer has made any effort to find out

whereabouts of person named “Vikram Siyag @ Vikky, resident of

Baytu, who according to Sanjay Kumar was driving the vehicle

carrying contraband substance.

11.

In view of the aforesaid there arises a reasonable doubt

about petitioner’s involvement in the offence of transporting illicit

contraband substance. The bail application filed by the petitioner

thus, deserves to be accepted.

12.

Consequently, the bail