Jaipal Bhadu And Ors vs State

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9402/2020:

This Court perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.113/2019 of Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under

Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that on 04.05.2019, when the concerned police officer confronted the tractor, one person driving the

tractor and the other person sitting in the tractor ran away from the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one Head Constable Rohtash Kumar, and another Constable Pradeep Singh are said to have

recognized the persons running away from the spot, as present petitioner-Jaipal Bhadu and Shiv Prakash @ Jaina, who are both real brothers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in fact the tractor was confiscated, but no person could have been caught, and thus, there was no

arrest on the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the presence of the present petitioner is recorded at a distant place, at the same time, when the

alleged crime is said to have taken place.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is no corroborative evidence whatsoever in the charge-sheet on record, which could justify

arraying of the present petitioner as an accused in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the CD of the location of

the petitioner is on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that unless a proper corroboration of the incident happened is made, on mere assumptions and a part of

the police team justifying the identification, would not entitle the prosecution to support continuance of custody of the present petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the concerned investigating officer present in the Court though vehemently oppose the bail application, but admit

that except for the so-called testimony of the Head Constable Rohtash Kumar, there is no other material available on record, which could link the

present petitioner with the crime in question, at this stage. They also admit that there is no corroborative evidence at this stage, which could otherwise

support the charges against the present petitioner.

In light of the aforesaid submissions and considering the material available on record, including the charge-sheet, this Court is inclined to discontinue

the custody of the present petitioner in this case, at this stage.

Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some

time, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under

Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Jaipal Bhadu S/o Shri Mohanlal @

Prithviraj shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.113/2019 of Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in

a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that

court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7548/2020:

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.113/2019 of Police Station

Sadar, Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in the present case.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the concerned investigating officer present in the Court, however, while opposing the bail application, submit that

the present is a bail application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and actually, the present petitioner is absconding, and therefore, granting him

anticipatory bail at this stage would not be justified.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the concerned investigating officer further submit that the present petitioner has been arrayed as accused in this

case, as he is the registered owner of the tractor, from which the contraband in question was recovered.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory

bail to the present petitioner. Consequently, the present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.