REPLY- SONU SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN.

1. That the Officer-in-Charge on behalf of the answering respondent

has read over the aforesaid Petition filed by the Petitioner and has

understood the same. All facts, averments, submissions, and

contentions raised by the Petitioner in the aforesaid Petition are

contrary to and not in consonance with the counter affidavit, are

singularly and specifically denied.

2. That the accused petitioner herein, is aggrieved by the rejection of

his bail application by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in

connection with FIR No.429/2018 under sections 8, 20 and 29 of

NDPS Act.

3. That the brief facts concisely stated are that the co-accused Madan

Lal, on 14.08.2018 at around 7.35 during patrolling near kasba

Sangaria, Bhagatpura Tiraha at the intersection where the accused

was stopped but instead of stopping he tried to escape, but was

chased down by the police officials. The accused then was held by

S.H.O Rai Singh ASI along with Sh. Vijay Singh H.C, Din Dayal on

his bajaj CT-100 motorcycle bearing no. RJ 31 SN 6688, and

apprehended the accused, where he was served a oral notice and

the police officials searched the vehicle along with the apprehended
 person. No objectionable article was found by the personal search.

Thereafter police searched the motorcycle there was a bag hanging

on the left side which had blue colour polythene inside it containing

7 boxes filled with medicines namely Tarmadol Hydrochloride

Tablets there were about 165 packets vide Tarmadol Hydrochloride

Tablets Triser B. No TSR 074 each packet contains 10 tablets (total

of 1650 tablets) and it was digitally scaled and weighed in a total

of 842.5 grams which comes under the commercial quantity of

NDPS Act. The Initial FIR was registered under sections 8/22

however, after the conclusion of investigation, offenses under

section 21,25 and 29 of NDPS Act were added to the charge sheet

as the co-accused Madan Lal was carrying the contraband for

commercial purpose which was being supplied to petitioner Sonu

Singh. As per the disclosure statement of the co-accused Madan lal.

4. That after sending information under section 57 in NDPS Act,

accused Madan Lal was produced before the Ld. Session court, on

verification he named the petitioner herein, as to whom the tablets

were being sold. The petitioner Sonu Singh was served a notice

under section 67 of the NDPS act and has admitted his offense and

was made aware by giving notice under section 52 of NDPS. The

petitioner Sonu Singh was arrested on 17.08.2018 under section

 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act, and the petitioner was sent to the judicial

custody.

5. That the accused petitioner herein, cannot take advantage of the

fact that he was not involved in this commercial activity of buying

the contraband substance. Where the said contraband which was

recovered by the police from accused Madan Lal were being sold to

the petitioner and the Ld. Session judge vide its order dated

01.09.2018 and the Hon’ble High Court vide its impugned

judgment/ final order dated 14.11.2018 rejected the bail

application. The offenses are attributed to the accused petitioner

where he admitted the charges against him.

6. That the Hon’ble High Court has exercised his judicial mind properly

in rejecting the bail granted to the accused petitioner as the

offenses committed by the petitioner is so serious that that by itself

is sufficient to cancel the bail of the accused petitioner. This Hon’ble

Court has held that the facts against the accused persons were

sufficient to reject the bail matters as the accused persons are

involved in serious crime, and that too in cases where the person

who is seeking bail is the one to whom some overt act is attributed.

7. In view of the aforesaid submission and reply the SLP filed by the

Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.