Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18448 (RAJ)

SUBHASH URF KALU S/O SHRI KAILASH CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/6211/2025 · 2025-07-28

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:28238] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6211/2025 Subhash Urf Kalu S/o Shri Kailash Chand, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Meeno Ka Mohalla, Thana Viratnagar, Dist. Kotputli Behror (At Presently Confined In Dist. Jail Kotputli) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Omveer Singh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/07/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.76/2025 registered at Police Station Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused, who was found in possession of 35.0648 gm of [2025:RJ-JP:28238] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6211/2025] Tramadol which is admittedly less than commercial quantity. It is submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases have been registered against him however, he fairly concedes that no case has been registered under the NDPS Act. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Subhash Urf Kalu S/o Shri Kailash Chand, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that [2025:RJ-JP:28238] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6211/2025] Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. The observations made hereinabove is only for the decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /121