SUNIL KUMAR S/O SHRI JHULJHARILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/10698/2025 · 2025-08-26
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28451 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28451 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:33751] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10698/2025
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jhuljharilal, R/o Jalalpur Tehsil Shri- madhopur District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Peti- tioner Confined In Sab Jail Neemkathana District Sikar).
2. Vikas S/o Shri Mahadev, R/o Dambiwal Apartment Reen- gus District Sikar. (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sab Jail Neem Ka Thana District Sikar). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10699/2025 Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Govind, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward No 34 Bikaner Stand Reengus Tehsil Reengus District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sab Jail Neemkathana Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.K. Bhinda For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 26/08/2025
1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS., on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.306/2025 registered at Police
[2025:RJ-JP:33751] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10698/2025] Station Reengus, District Sikar (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/18 & 8/25 of NDPS Act.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is marginally above from the small quantity. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest & trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
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 petitioners as also the fact that alleged recovered contraband is marginally above from the small quantity; 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 applications.
6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jhuljharilal, 2) Vikas S/o Shri Mahadev & 3) Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Govind shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they
[2025:RJ-JP:33751] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10698/2025] 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 the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.
8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioner fail to mark their 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 them by this Court.
10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.
11. 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 /208-209