Ramavtar Son Of Shri Gopiram vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ramavtar, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 51/2022 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur, for offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed no contraband was recovered from him and that the hotel where recovery was made was registered in another person's name, with whom he had no relation. He annexed documents including GST registration. He had been granted interim protection, and a co-accused's bail was granted. The respondent State opposed the application, submitting a factual report. The petitioner's prior rejection bail order indicated statements from hotel workers and a Gram Panchayat letter identifying him as the owner and manager, and a witness stated purchasing opium poppy from him. The factual report mentioned recovery of narcotic substance from the hotel in his possession and noted his criminal antecedents, including a previous NDPS case.
Held
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. The reasoning was based on the factual report and the observations made in the petitioner's earlier rejection bail order. The Court noted that witnesses identified the petitioner as the owner and manager of Pandit Hotel, and a witness stated purchasing opium poppy from him. The factual report confirmed the recovery of narcotic substance from the hotel in the petitioner's possession and indicated that the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act was found against him. Furthermore, the report highlighted the petitioner's criminal antecedents, including a previous case under the NDPS Act. While the Court stated it was not expressing an opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, it deemed it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail given these circumstances. No specific issue was left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 51/2022 for offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, considering the allegations and his alleged involvement in the recovery of contraband from Pandit Hotel. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that no recovery of contraband was made from his person, and the hotel was registered in the name of Rajendra Sharma, with whom he had no connection. He submitted documents, including GST registration, to support his claim. He also highlighted that a co-accused had been granted bail and that he had received interim protection. Respondent's arguments: The State strongly opposed the bail application, relying on the factual report. The report indicated that the petitioner was identified as the owner and manager of Pandit Hotel by witnesses and that narcotic substance was recovered from the hotel in his possession. The report also stated that the petitioner had criminal antecedents, including a previous case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
Sections Cited
Section 8/15, Section 438
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 13/10/2022 This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C in connection with FIR No.51/2022 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur for the offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery of contraband has to be made from the petitioner and the hotel, from where the alleged contraband has been recovered is registered in the name of Rajendra Sharma. The petitioner has no relation with this case. Copy of the relevant documents (Detail of proprietor, Electricity bill, GST registration certificate, Additional place of business, ID/Aadhar of MSME and License of Central Board of Excise and Customs) are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-3. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been given interim protection from arrest by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.06.2022 and (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3448/2022] the anticipatory bail application of co-accused- Rajendra Prasad Sharma has already been granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Shahpura, District Jaipur vide its order dated 21.07.2022. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may kindly be granted. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a photo-copy of the bail order of co- accused- Rajendra Prasad Sharma, which is taken on record. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate-cum- Additional Advocate General has strongly opposed the bail application. He has also submitted the factual report, which is taken on record. Heard. Perused the material available on record. In the anticipatory bail order of co-accused- Rajendra Prasad Sharma, it has been mentioned that in the factual report also, it is found that the applicant/accused- Rajendra Prasad is not involved in the offence as alleged. As per rejection bail order of the petitioner, it has been observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Shahpura, District Jaipur that “Uttam Singh and Gangaram who work at Pandit Hotel in their Police statements have clearly stated that the accused-applicant Ramavtar Sharma @ Pappu is the owner and manager of Pandit Hotel. The letter issued by Gram Panchayat showing physical possession of the Hotel also shows that the Pandit Hotel is managed by Ramavtar Sharma @ Pappu. Witness- Ashok Kumar in his Police statement has stated the fact of (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3448/2022] purchasing Opium Poppy (Doda Post) from the manager of Pandit Hotel- Ramavtar Sharma @ Pappu.” In the factual report it has been mentioned that in this matter, after investigation, Narcotic substance- Opium Poppy Peel has been recovered from the Hotel which was in the possession of accused- Ramavtar Sharma. It has also been mentioned that the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act was found against the petitioner and as per factual report, he has criminal antecedents of three cases, out of which, one case pertains to Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail of the petitioner application is dismissed. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J Satyendra/49
Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.