Budha Ram v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
This order grants bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case where 500gm of opium was recovered. The court held it just and proper to release the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner enlarged on bail by personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
What the court decided
[ 1 ]
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.3274/2015
(Budha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Date of order : : 05-05-2015
HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Mr. Ramniwas Bishnoi, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor.
<><><><>
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.15/2015, Police Station Mandli, District Barmer for the offence under Section 8/18 NDPS Act.
The recovery in the present case is 500gm of Opium which is less than the commercial quantity.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Budha Ram S/o Narayan Ram shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail from the inherent power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving seizure of less than commercial quantity of opium.
Whether the quantum of opium recovered (500 gm) being less than commercial quantity warrants grant of bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Budha Ram
- respondent
State of Rajasthan
Coram
Nirmaljit Kaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLMB/3274/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court