(1 of 2)

[CRLMB-9417/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 9417/2021

Chhoga Ram S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Bishnoi,

Earlier R/o Near Kheri Salwa, Kheri Dhani, Thana Dangiyawas,

Jodhpur. Latest Address- Bishnoiyon Ka Bas, P.s. Mahamandir,

Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged At Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Mayank Roy

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

13/04/2022

This is a second application for bail filed on behalf of the

petitioner Chhoga Ram who is in custody since 18.07.2019. The

petitioner was apprehended while transporting contraband poppy

straw weighing 105 Kg in an Innova Car No.RJ14-TA-4648. The car

was stopped and searched during the random nakabandi

operation.

Shri Anand Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri

Mayank Roy representing the petitioner urges that since the

personal search of the petitioner was also taken during the course

of the search and seizure proceedings, non-compliance of Section

50 of the NDPS Act in this procedure is fatal to the prosecution

and hence, the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed

the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He referred

to the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Kallu

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-9417/2021]

Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan [2021] 4 Crimes (SC) 565 and

Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow

Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan [2021] 0 AIR (SC) 4476 and urges that

recovery was effected during search of the vehicles and not the

personal search of the accused, non-compliance of Section 50 of

the NDPS Act cannot be treated fatal to the prosecution case. He

urges that the contraband poppy straw recovered from the car

being driven by the petitioner weighed 105 kg, which was above

commercial quantity, hence, the bar contained in Section 37 of the

NDPS Act clearly operate against the petitioner and as a

consequence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at the bar and keeping in view the fact that the recovery

was effected from a moving vehicle in the night time during the

random search, the issue raised by the petitioner’s counsel

regarding the non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act does not

in any manner effect the veracity of the prosecution case. The

recovered contraband weighs well above the commercial quantity.

The restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act clearly

operate against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled

to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the instant second application for bail is

dismissed as being devoid of merit.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/17-