Balu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prakash Soni, J

The applicant is arrested and detained in Crime (FIR) No. 161/2022 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (For short “the Act”) and by this petition, seeks restoration of his liberty on appropriate bail-bond.

Earlier, applicant made endeavor for seeking bail by way of filing first bail application but the same was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh after recording of statement of investigating officer.

Besides other arguments in relation to defects and shortcomings during seizure, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the field in question, from which the recovery was allegedly made, was not in the exclusive possession of the applicant. He wasn't even the owner of the field. It is further contended that seizure officer has admitted that before seizing the contraband, he did not get any verification done regarding the ownership rights or possession of the land; the field in question is an open place where anyone can come and go; he did not obtain any document from the Patwari or Gram Sevak regarding the ownership or possession of the land. It is further argued that petitioner has been implicated in the case only on the basis of his own statement, therefore, on the basis of such statement and recovery made from such place, liberty of petitioner cannot be curtailed. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by the Court, in case he is enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the applicant was in exclusive possession of the disputed field and that the contraband was placed there by him only. The evidence of material witness regarding this fact is yet to be recorded; that the 210 Kgs. Of poppy straw contraband recovered from the applicant falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and the bar as contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. He thus, craves rejection of the applicants’ bail application.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

On perusal of record, it is revealed that the “Jamabandi” in the name of the applicant's father is available on record for the disputed land of field, hence prima facie it cannot be said that applicant has no connection at all, with the place of recovery. It is also admitted by the seizure officer that after the seizure, the investigating officer had obtained the documents regarding the field and collected evidence. Further, statements of two witnesses namely Vehanaram and Genaram recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are available on record, who have given evidence regarding the possession of the applicant on the disputed field and their statements are yet to be recorded during the trial.

Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as after going through the material and evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that at this stage, in absence of statements of said Vehanaram and Genaram, applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Thus, the application for bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code is dismissed as being devoid of merit.

However, the trial Court is directed to make all efforts to record statement of above-mentioned two witnesses namely Vehanaram and Genaram within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present application only.