Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27134 (RAJ)

RAJKUMAR S/O PRAHLAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/10037/2025 · 2025-08-08

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:30866] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10037/2025 Rajkumar S/o Prahlad, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Raoti, Police Station Baigu, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) (Presently Con- fined In District Jail At Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/08/2025 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 FIR No.219/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruit purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual [2025:RJ-JP:30866] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10037/2025] offender as three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him. 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 parties, especially considering the criminal antecedents against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are 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 LALIT MOHAN/367