SIKANDAR ALAM S/O MANZOOR ALAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/1936/2025 · 2025-02-21
Ganesh Ram Meena
Civil Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6233 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6233 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:7896] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1936/2025 Sikandar Alam S/o Manzoor Alam, Aged About 32 Years, R/o C.a.d. Coloni Sultanpur Thana Sultanpur District Kota. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narnder Prasad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order 21/02/2025
1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner in connection with FIR No. 140/124 registered at Police Station- Sultanpur, District- Kota for offences under Section 8/20, 8/25 of NDPS Act.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the co-accused Mahender Mehra and the same is less than the commercial quantity as notified.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2024 and the co- accused Mahender Mehra has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:7896] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1936/2025]
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is a recovery of 1.300 KG Ganja from the possession of the petitioner and therefore, he does not deserve the indulgence for bail. 5. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the Challan papers. 6. The allegation against the accused-petitioner relates to the commission of offence under provision of Section 8/20 and 8/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act 1985 and the recovery of the alleged Ganja that is, 1.300 KG, is less than the commercial quantity as notified. The said alleged contraband has been found to be recovered from the joint possession of the accused- petitioner and the co-accused Mahender Mehra. The restriction of grant of bail under the provision of section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply in the present case. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:-
“The allegations against the appellant relate to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Alleged recovery from him is about 35 kgs. and 150 grams Doda Posh (Poppy straw). The commercial quantity for poppy straw is 50 kgs. The appellant is in custody for over seven months. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The recovered contraband item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in his case. We do not think his continued detention pending trial is necessary in the given circumstances.”
[2025:RJ-JP:7896] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1936/2025]
8. The co-accused Mahender Mehra has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 and in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, so also to maintain parity, the accused petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. 9.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the police has completed the investigation and has filed the chargesheet in the matter and the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a Magistrate, this Court deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 10. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioner 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 trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J NEERU/13