Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4239 (RAJ)

JAGDISH PRASAD KULDEEP S/O PRAKASH KULDEEP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/541/2026 · 2026-03-18

Sameer Jain

Special Leave Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:11577] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 541/2026 Jagdish Prasad Kuldeep S/o Prakash Kuldeep, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dabar Colony, Kaladera, Police Station Kaladera, Jaipur Rural. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2558/2026 Babulal Harijan S/o Shri Bhanwarlal Harijan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bawadi Ki Dhani, Shiva Colony Village Anuppura, Police Station Kaladera, Jaipur Rural. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini Mr. Kawal Singh Loha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 18/03/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 538/2025 registered at Police Station Vidyadharnagar District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act, 1985. [2026:RJ-JP:11577] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-541/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the applicant-Jagdish Prasad Kuldeep has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter merely on the basis of submissions of applicant- Babulal Harijan. It is submitted that the quantity recovered from the applicant is 53 grams which is slightly higher than the commercial quantity. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the instant bail applications and submitted that as per the ratio encapsulated in State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh Kumar reported in SLP (Crl.) Nos.7309−7312 of 2019 and Nisha Devi Vs. State of HP reported in Cr.MP(M) No.143/2016, the embargo of Section 37 applies and prima facie consideration has to be carried out. It is further submitted that investigation is ongoing and charge-sheet is yet not filed. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicants has requested for a liberty to withdraw the present bail applications, with liberty to move the same on change in circumstances. 5. Considering the request made by learned counsel for the applicant(s), the present bail applications are dismissed as withdrawn, with a liberty to the applicants that they may move bail application(s) upon filing of charge-sheet. It is made clear that no prejudice be caused, on account of withdrawal of the present application(s). 6. A copy of present order be placed in the connected application. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/37-38