Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:7818) on 14 February, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:7818]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1847/2024

 Mukesh S/o Prakash Valmiki, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No.
 02 Khunja, Hanumangarh Junction, At Present Tenant 7/230
 Housingh Board Hanumangarh Jucntion Dist Hanumangarh.
 (Lodged In Dist Jail Hanumangarh)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Aditya Singh for
                                   Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order 14/02/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused- petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                         Particulars of the Case
     1.    FIR Number                                 32/2024
     2.    Concerned Police Station                   Hanumangarh Sadar
     3.    District                                   Hanumangarh
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                Under Sections 8/21 of
                                                          the NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                     -

6. Date of passing of impugned 02.02.2024 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial (Downloaded on 15/02/2024 at 08:46:42 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:7818] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1847/2024] quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. His incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court (Downloaded on 15/02/2024 at 08:46:42 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:7818] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1847/2024] concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J 560-divya/-

(Downloaded on 15/02/2024 at 08:46:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)