Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27122 (RAJ)

JODHRAJ MEENA S/O MANNALAL MEENA v. C.B.N.

CRLMB/10133/2025 · 2025-08-26

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:33709] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10133/2025 Jodhraj Meena S/o Mannalal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Gangati, Tehsil Chhipabarod, District Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota) ----Petitioner Versus C.b.n., Through Special Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Gadwal Mr. Waseem Akram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP For Central Bureau of Narcotics HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Case No.04.2025 registered at C.B.N, District Bhawanimandi for the offence punishable under Section 8/15(B) of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:33709] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10133/2025] 3. Learned Special 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 out of which one case is 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 both the parties, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and trial will take 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 - Jodhraj Meena S/o Mannalal Meena, 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 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 petitioner shall not involve in similar offence and shall mark his presence in the concerned ACB police station in first week of every month till conclusion of trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and investigating agency. He shall keep his [2025:RJ-JP:33709] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10133/2025] mobile phone in active mode and may not switch off for a longer period intentionally. 8. The observation 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 /173