Vikram vs State

Vijay Bishnoi, J

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since four and half years and, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that co-accused Rahul has been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking into consideration the fact that he is facing incarceration for the last more than four years.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and argued that the petitioner was found transporting narcotic contraband poppy straw weighing 100 kgs in a vehicle. It is submitted that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Rahul as the vehicle, in which, poppy straw above commercial quantity was being transported is owned by the petitioner himself and, therefore, he cannot claim parity with co-accused Rahul. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that taking into consideration the recovery of huge quantity of narcotic contraband poppy straw from the conscious possession of the petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner; taking into consideration the material available on record and keeping in view the fact that huge quantity of narcotic contraband poppy straw above commercial quantity is recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner in his own vehicle, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail.

Hence, this fourth bail application is dismissed.