Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7494 (RAJ)

RAJESH KUMAR S/O SH. RAMESHWARLAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7913/2026 · 2026-05-20

Ravi Chirania

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:21232] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7913/2026 Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwarlal, aged about 25 years, R/o Mandha, Police Station Khatushyamji Sadar, Distt. Sikar. (Petitioner is in District Jail Sikar). ----Accused-Applicant Versus The State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan Mr. Lakshya K Sharma Ms. Shazadi Banu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 20/05/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the accused-applicant who was arrested in connection with FIR No.53/2026 dated 07.05.2026, registered at Police Station Khatushyamji Sadar, District Sikar for the offences under Section 8, 21 and 22 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents of any nature, including the NDPS Act, 1985, and that the police has allegedly recovered seven bottles of Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride (Cough Syrup), which contains contraband substances (Codeine salt and Tramadol). He further submits that the commercial quantity under the Act of 1985 is 1 Kg for Codeine salt, whereas the complete liquid in each bottle was 100 ml. He [2026:RJ-JP:21232] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7913/2026] further submits that the Tramadol salt in the cough syrup is much below the commercial quantity as per the Act of 1985. He further submits that police has mentioned the complete weight as 1Kg and 13 grams which is factually incorrect. In view thereof, counsel submits that the present accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he may be enlarged on bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the bail application. 4. This Court considered the fact that the accused-applicant has no criminal antecedents of any nature in the past including under the NDPS Act. Further, the alleged recovery made from the present applicant is of cough syrup which contains Tramadol and Codeine salt, for which the commercial quantity is 250 grams and 1 Kg, respectively, as prescribed under the Act. The Tramadol salt as present in the cough syrup is much below the commercial quantity as prescribed under the Act of 1985. 5. Without making any comments on the merits of the case, noticing that the accused-applicant has no case of the NDPS Act in the past and the alleged contraband substance is below the commercial quantity as prescribed, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that accused-applicant Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwarlal, shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called [2026:RJ-JP:21232] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7913/2026] upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The applicant is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. 7. In case the accused-applicant is found to be involved in any case of NDPS Act during the pendency of the trial, the present bail application shall stands cancel automatically, without reference to this Court. 8. The accused-applicants shall report to the concerned police station twice a month and concerned SHO shall maintain the register of his physical presence. In case of any failure, even for a month, SHO will inform the concerned trial Court and such non- appearance shall be considered as breach of conditions, in that situation this bail order shall stands cancel automatically without reference to this Court. 9. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail application will not prejudice the trial. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J PARSHANT/19