Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46894 (RAJ)

RAJESH S/O SHRI SUBADDHI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/13650/2025 · 2025-10-15

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:42193] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13650/2025 Rajesh S/o Shri Subaddhi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Konyan Ka Pura, Akbarpur, Police Station Shrimahaveerji, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined At District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deshraj Sain with Mr. Lokesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/10/2025 1. The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.107/2025 registered at Police Station Karauli Sadar, District Karauli for offence punishable under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that as per prosecution case, petitioner was found in possession of contraband (Heroin) weighing 5.63grams which is slightly above the small quantity. It is submitted that co-accused [2025:RJ-JP:42193] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13650/2025] namely- Rupinder @ Rupendra has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him under the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 fact that alleged recovered contraband is slightly above the small quantity 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 second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Rajesh S/o Shri Subaddhi, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:42193] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13650/2025] 8. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first and third week of every month, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any 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 the petitioner by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /67