Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20817 (RAJ)

KALULAL S/O BHANWARLAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/16876/2025 · 2026-01-09

Ashok Kumar Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:984] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 3rd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16876/2025 Kalulal S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Regar Mohalla Surajpole Gate Ke Bahar, Jhalarapatan, Dist. Jhalawar. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 09/01/2026 1. The third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Kalulal S/o Bhanwarlal seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.242/2025 dated 15.07.2025 registered at P.S. Jhalarapatan District -Jhalawar, for the offence under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2026:RJ-JP:984] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16876/2025] 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.08.2025 but second bail application was dismissed as same is not filed after recording statement of independent witnesses, if any and search an seizure officer. He further submitted that the recovered quantity is less than commercial and petitioner undertake not to repeat the offence. He also submitted that any condition can be imposed and petitioner will abide by same. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station wherein four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner out of which 3 were under the NDPS Act. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On 15.07.2025 Harlal Meena, SHO, P.S. Jhalarapatan has intercepted the petitioner and on search and seizure, recovered 50.17 gm of smack (heroine) from possession of present petitioner. After drawing memos, FIR No.242/2025 dated 15.07.2025 was registered under Sections 8/21 and 29 of NPDS Act. After investigation, police has filed charge- sheet against the petitioner. The record indicated that four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner out of which 3 are under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act which clearly indicated that petitioner is regularly involved in identical [2026:RJ-JP:984] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16876/2025] nature of cases, therefore considering his involvement in cases relating to NDPS Act, this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail. 7. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 8. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the third application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Kalulal S/o Bhanwarlal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /27