Naresh Kumar @ Laddu vs State Of Rajasthan

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.221/2019, Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under Sections 8/15, 21, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2022 with a direction to the learned trial court to explore the possibility of getting the statement of Investigation Officer & Seizure Officer recorded at the earliest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court including the Seizure Officer Prahalad Chand (P.W.3). He further submits that there is nobody else in the family of the petitioner to look after the well being of his wife and two small kids. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than three years. He submits that out of 32 witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined so far. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the statement of the Seizure Officer (P.W.3), huge quantity of contraband drugs have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He submits that the statement of P.W.3 clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner in the recovery of contraband drugs in the present case.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case.

As per the statement of the prosecution witnesses including the statement of the Seizure Officer, it is more than apparent that huge quantity of contraband drugs have been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. At this stage, since huge quantity of contraband drugs have been recovered from the present petitioner which is not disputed in the prosecution story and the witnesses recorded before the trial court so far, taking into consideration the menace of drugs in the society, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present third bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.