MAHESH CHAND SAINI S/O SHRI GHASIRAM SAINI v. UNION OF INDIA
CRLMB/6304/2025 · 2025-05-27
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18716 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18716 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:22179] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 6304/2025 Mahesh Chand Saini S/o Shri Ghasiram Saini, R/o Nabi Ka Bag, Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Rajgarh). ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP Mr. Vaibhav Jhankra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 27/05/2025
1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.06/2024 registered at Police Station Central Narcotics Bureau, District Jaipur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated
13.12.2024. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 25.02.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter, thus this third bail application has been preferred.
[2025:RJ-JP:22179] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6304/2025]
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that it is a case of non-compliance of provisions provided under Sections 42 & 52A of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that prosecution failed to mention the exact weight of the contraband. Counsel contends that there is valid licence in favour of son of the petitioner to store, sale and purchase the medicines. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further contends that petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court:-
1. State of Orissa Vs. A. Rajeswar Patra (Criminal Appeal No. 554/1997)
2. Surepally Srinivas Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.1474 of 2025)
3. Edigi Ramaiah & Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos.1475-1476 of 2025)
4. Babi @ Baubi Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12584/2024)
5. Jitu @ Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.514/2025)
6. Rajesh Dhakar vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.5171/2024)
7. Harvinder Singh vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No.6864/2024)
[2025:RJ-JP:22179] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6304/2025]
4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner has been found in possession of 5280 SPASMO TAD Capsules (Tramadol 50mg) which belongs to the category of commercial quantity. He further submits that there was no licence with the petitioner to keep these capsules at his residential premises. It is submitted that case is still at initial stage and considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that petitioner has been found in possession of huge quantity of 5280 SPASMO TAD Capsules (Tramadol 50mg) and he was not having licence to keep such medicines at his residential premises thus, looking to the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove is only for 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 GAUTAM JAIN /344