Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Yogesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22636) on 8 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:22636]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4437/2024
Yogesh S/o Banshilal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Near Play
Ground, Near Government Hospital Street, Swaroopganj, P.S.
Swaroopganj, District - Sirohi (Rajasthan).
(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangilal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order 08/05/2025 This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.209/2023, registered at Police Station Swaroopganj District - Sirohi for offence under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that allegations against the present petitioners are that a huge quantity of narcotic drug - Tramadol capsules (6997 in number) have been recovered from the house of the accused-petitioner which was alleged to be in his conscious possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to (Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:26:46 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:22636] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4437/2024] Appeal (Crl.) No(s).9510/2024 Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajashan arising out of the impugned final judgment and order dated 20.04.2024, passed in S.B. CRMBA No.11503/2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur.
While relying upon the orders dated 27.03.2025 and 02.05.2025, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sachin Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9850/2024 and Arjunram Vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No.4772/2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in similar cases have enlarged the accused on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused is in judicial custody since 13.08.2023 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused- petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that on the secret information the house of the petitioner was searched and a huge quantity of narcotic drugs i.e. 6997 Tramadol capsules were seized from the house of Yogesh Kumar which was in his conscious possession without having a valid license. On weighing the capsules it was found to be 4 kg and 198.02 gm which is above the commercial quantity. accused has committed a heinous crime. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:26:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:22636] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4437/2024] Learned Public Prosecutor also produced the FSL report dated 29.12.2023. The result of the FSL report shows that the sample capsules contained in the packet Marked D was found to contain Tramadol Dicyclomine and Paracetamol. The weight of inner substance of ten capsules is 4.65 gm.
This Court finds that the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is with regard to offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act and the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court relates to the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Whereas the present is the case punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. Hence, the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in the present case.
This Court finds that at this stage, when relevant prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it cannot be said that the accused has not committed any offence. The involvement of the accused in the commission of offence can be ascertained only after recording of the statements of the witnesses. No comment can be made on the merits/demerits of the case at this stage.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage. The FSL report dated 29.12.2023 is taken on record.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J 7-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
(Downloaded on 12/05/2025 at 09:26:46 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)