Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15378 (RAJ)

KAMAL CHULET S/O CHIRANJILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/5090/2025 · 2025-04-17

Pramil Kumar Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:16434] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5090/2025 Kamal Chulet S/o Chiranjilal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Out Of Churu Gate, Ward No. 10, Kasba Ramgarh Sekhawati, Police Station Ramgarh Sekhawati, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) (Petitioner Is In Sub Jail Fatehpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 17/04/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.166/2024 registered at Police Station-Ramarh Sethan, District-Sikar for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/20 of NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as per the FIR, 22.226 kg Ganja has been recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner, which is marginally above commercial quantity. The recovered contraband article does not fall within the definition of Ganja, because as per [2025:RJ-JP:16434] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5090/2025] the definition given in NDPS Act, seeds and leaves are exclusively exempted from the definition of Ganja. It is also submitted that the petitioner is 65 years old person and charge-sheet has been filed and he is behind the bars since 19.12.2024. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:- (1) Judgment dated 26.04.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor Vs. The State of Gujarat in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).2523/2023, (2) Order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Brijesh @ Bunty Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.15600/2024), (3) Order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Aditya Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11226/2023), (4) Order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Gulam Moinuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11504/2019), (5) Order dated 04.11.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balli @ Balveer Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail [2025:RJ-JP:16434] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5090/2025] Application No.7332/2024), (6) Order dated 03.06.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamlesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16044/2023), (7) Order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1107/2024) and (8) Order dated 19.04.2023 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3732/2023). 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and he submits that the recovered contraband is above the commercial quantity. As per the definition of Ganja it is implied if seeds and leaves are accompanied by tops by way of flowering or fruiting, it would amount to Ganja and in the present case also, as per the seizure memo, recovered article be termed as above the commercial quantity. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:16434] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5090/2025] 6. In view of the contentions raised by the learned Public Prosecutor, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are in vain. 7. Hence, the present bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/355