Dismissed

Madanlal Son of Shri Danmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2021CRLMB/2914/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for NDPS charges, the High Court dismissed the plea citing the commercial quantity of drugs involved and rejection of co-accused bail. Despite awaiting witness statements, the court denied immediate relief but allowed a fresh application later.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to move fresh bail application after recording statement of principal witnesses; current application dismissed.

Madanlal Son of Shri Danmal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶3

2914/2021

¶4

Madanlal Son Of Shri Danmal, Resident Of Bardavda, Police Station Kamkheda, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Presently Confined In District Jail Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman through VC For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

22/07/2021

¶13

Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

F.I.R. No.108/2017 was registered at Police Station Pisangan, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 8/15, 8/29 of NDPS Act.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. The contraband was recovered on 26.08.2017 and co-accused in interrogation have informed that the contraband was loaded by the present petitioner. It is also contended that petitioner was arrested on 07.09.2020 and consequently, supplementary charge-sheet was filed and the matter was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLMB-2914/2021]

¶19

application. It is contended that the matter pertains to commercial quantity. Bail application of co-accused Ram Lal @ Ramdev and

¶20

Bhanwar Lal @ Bhura stands rejected by the High Court. It is also contended that there is mobile calls between the petitioner and the co-accused which establishes his connection with the crime. It is also contended that initially petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed as withdrawn way back on 30.08.2018.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the State, I am not inclined to allow the second bail application.

¶23

This second bail application is accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

However, petitioner would be free to move fresh bail application after recording the statement of the principal witnesses.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

CHANDAN /1

Madanlal Son of Shri Danmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madanlal Son of Shri Danmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Karishma @ Kasso W/O Wasim Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinay Kumar S/O Sita Ram Vs Union of India

Kailash Son of Kadu Vs State of Rajasthan

Juned Alam S/O Shri Mohammed Habibul Rahman Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Jaheer Alam S/O Shri Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Rajasthan