1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.869/2010 Dharampal vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 11.02.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Santanu Bansal, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Santanu Bansal Advocate on behalf of the applicant Dharampal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 162/2005 of Police Station Transport Nagar, District Jaipur, in the offence under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that initially one FIR No. 162/2005 came to be lodged in the offence under Section 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act. Police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons Mewa Singh S/o. Chuhad Singh and Indrajeet @ Babbu Singh S/o. Nirbhay Singh and the investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against Dharampal @ Gyani and Dalvinder Singh. Now the petitioner has been in custody for the last six months. There is not even a shred of evidence emerging on record against him. The prosecution mainly has relied upon the statements of Raju and 2 Rajneesh who were not examined by the prosecution during the trial. Even at the time,when further investigation was going on, the Investigating Officer recorded only the statements of two witnesses who have simply stated that the petitioner used to loiter near 'Dhaba'. Since the petitioner has been falsely implicated, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that both the witnesses Raju and Rajneesh have categorically stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that it was the petitioner who took some bags in tractor and thereafter, got loaded in truck. Later on, when the police seized these bags, Doda Post Chura was found therein. Both the accused persons have been convicted by the trial court against which criminal appeal has been preferred and pending in the High Court. Hence, in view of the circumstances, the petitioner should not be granted any indulgence of bail. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that the petitioner Dharampal @ Gyani was the person who is alleged to have got loaded some bags in a truck, wherein later on, Doda Post Chura was found. I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not deem just and proper to grant any indulgence of bail to the petitioner and the second bail petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the second bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Dharampal stands dismissed. 3 7. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is granted liberty to file bail petition afresh after recording the statements of Raju and Rajneesh. Learned trial court should record the statements of these two witnesses on priority basis. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 10