Allowed

Mohanlal v. State

Rajasthan HC5 May 2018CRLMB/3520/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by Mohanlal, arrested under the NDPS Act. The court observed that no investigation was pending and no contraband was recovered from his possession, deeming it just to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to appear before the trial court.

Mohanlal Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 3520 / 2018

¶3

Mohanlal S/o Sh. Radheyshyam, By Caste Patidar, Resident of MalKa-Kheda, P.S. Neemuch, District Neemuch (M.P.) (Presently Lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. AS Rathore, PP

¶10

Mr. Datar Singh, S.I., PS Police Line, Bhilwara

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order

¶12

05/05/2018

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.326/2017 of Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Sections 8/25, 8/29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of recovery, co-accused Chhaganlal and Gopal both were present. Thereafter they gave information that the recovered contraband is belonging to the present petitioner. Only on the statement of the co-accused, the petitioner was implicated in this case and subsequently arrested by the police. Counsel further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Challan of the case has already been presented. No investigation is pending. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody and the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-3520/2018]

¶17

trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accusedpetitioner.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Mohanlal S/o Sh. Radheyshyam shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.326/2017 of Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶21

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG) J.

¶22

ms/-6

Mohanlal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanlal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitash @ Ravi Vs State

Rohit Kumar Vs State

Surjeet and Ors. Vs State

Ramesh Kumar Vs State

Ashok Singh and Ors. Vs State

Rawta Ram Vs State