Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5617 (RAJ)

RAHUL KASOTIYA S/O OMPRAKASH KASOTIYA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/4910/2026 · 2026-04-17

Sameer Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16314] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4910/2026 Rahul Kasotiya S/o Omprakash Kasotiya, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 30/42/7, Jain Mandir, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Chandra Sharma with Mr. Kunal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhwat, PP Mr. Suryabhan Singh, Inspector Police, SHO, Police Station, Borada, Ajmer HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 17/04/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.133/2025 registered at Police Station Arain, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the first bail application was dismissed on 03.12.2025 and there is change in circumstance. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second bail application. It is submitted that submitted that the quantity recovered is much more than the [2026:RJ-JP:16314] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-4910/2026] commercial quantity as prescribed; ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable and the motor vehicle was not transferred as per mandate of Motor Vehicle Act. 4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, considering that the quantity recovered is much more than the commercial quantity as per the statute; ingredients of Section 37 of NDPS Act are made applicable and the motor vehicle was not transferred as per mandate of Motor Vehicle Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the second bail application. 5. Accordingly, second bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /165