Advocates:
['VINOD KUMAR SHARMA', '', 'DILIP KUMAR SHARMA', 'RAJ KUMAR GAUR', 'ADITYA SHARMA', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 14409/2021

Bhagirathram S/o Chainaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mirpura,

Police Station Karda, District Jalore.

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vinod Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Javed Gauri, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

20/11/2021

Accused petitioner has made this second attempt for seeking

bail in connection with FIR No.19/2019 of Police Station Ramsin,

District Jalore for offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 18 of

the N.D.P.S. Act.

The first bail application at the behest of petitioner was

dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh bail application

after recording statements of Seizure Officer and owner of the

land-Badridan.

Pressing this second bail application, it is submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that place from where the

contraband was recovered does not belong to accused-petitioner

and the said place belongs to one Badridan Singh, who is a retired

Tehsildar and just to protect Badridan, the present accused-

(2 of 3)

[CRLMB-14409/2021]

petitioner has wrongly been implicated in this case. During the

statement, it is admitted by the Investigating Officer (P.W.1)

Chattar Singh that on the back of Ex.40, rent-note, there is an

overwriting in between the places “A” to “B” and the word “rent

agreement” has been written; and in this regard, no investigation

was made by him and he also did not investigate that who is the

witnesses to that document Ex.40, what was the period of tenency

and no signature of any independent witnesses upon Ex.39 has

been obtained. P.W.2 Badridan himself admitted that there is

nothing mentioned in rent-note that Bhagirath was not the tenant

in the year 2019. It is also not mentioned that what was the

period of tenancy and regarding handing over of the possession of

the premises, no document is available. With these submission,

learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that benefit of bail

may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this

second bail application of petitioner and stated that Chhatar Singh

(P.W.1) has supported the story of prosecution and during the

course of investigation, it was informed by accused-petitioner that

he verified the place where he had purchased the contraband from

unknown persons.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and looking to the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded before

learned trial Court and looking to the admission made by both the

witnesses during cross-examination, I deem it just and

appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner by enlarging him

on bail.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-14409/2021]

Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner,

Bhagirathram S/o Chainaram, arrested in connection with F.I.R.

No.19/2019 of Police Station Ramsin, District Jalore, to be

released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the

satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear

before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called

upon to do so.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

77-Bharti/-