The Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under the NDPS Act, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents from a rejection bail order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR WJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 948512021
Hanuman Gudar S/o Shri Moolchand, R/o Village Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj).
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
L "h,T TTr.,.
..*. '5 ! g 1 -91 1 Ij p 1: ' ,k-
g"t_ ' E" t' 9.1 .' .-- + *%.A< l; .,-!j-
a -
'. .j. .w-..
For etitioner(s)5 . . ' v: Mr. Lokesh Kumar Verma-
.- :
:
For esondents) Mr. Pankaj Aggarwal, P'P--=++).
.* .' , ;?
/PP,&Y -*
r. -2,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
27/07/2021
This bail applicatio~~~has:ee'~~:fied'under I.v;>. , . , .' , ., ,. , , . .+.:....; . .:; ,-. ,, s Section 438 Cr,P.C. _q),,:&.%!._ ii:-.. ., . ,: .,...,,. ..,,:'<,I! ;.',;: **:.+?<2bv** >.>;+; ., i: 1, ;>.;;;? in connection with FIR,~N.. , 6512021~;' . . ., , 1 :. ;. egiitered ~ at Police Station 'lf [I x.y.: ,,.,e..i, 1 p'i Paniyala, District Jaipur fbr the ;,offencds under sections 8/15 and B ,$ 1 jf , ;,;) : i 1; ,', ; i t If, I,, ,I [/& 'i ?< !:\ 8/29 of NDPS Act. J: [': r+.d;?, ti, 6: t...j:g. ~2,~~ d h:: *,kk:~b':L<<'.":!,.. TP,. -7 : , ...7:7;<:;:j : .,. ..,; - ".:..'.,, a,:;;,!:::<;!, >..- ,\ ,..,.., , , ;, ,.<!, ,; a ,.,,&. '\ .. :;<, Learned counsel {f~r:'tti:e::pegio,ne:,sp,b,mits %';-a ,'; i .- cci 5. ,, . *.--< ;; i that according to .. :.: ,<-::;>, . ,.- ,t :: , ,,, ';!..>& .,,;,; :....,,,.'',..;,:. 7::) ,!.,!I! ',: the FIR, police recovee~::,wokilograms,,of . .. . . !: , ,!">:, :;.?: ,..!.s >. , r' contraband (poppy $?cG;s;Z.7iijj straw) from co-accused -A Bhupeudra -..-., Singh, -=.. which, is less than the -t(y.;'-,,d "pL!d commercial quantity. ~o'unsel further submits that bail application of co-accused Bhupendra Singh under section 439 Cr.P.C. has already been granted by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Counsel also submits that petitioner has not committed any such alleged offence and no recovery of any kind is pending. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner may kindly be granted.
(2 of 2)
[~~~~~-9485/20211
On the other, ha,nd, learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the bail application and further submitted that as per the rejection bail order, petitioner has criminal antecedents in relation to one case i-e., FIR No. 1781243 registered for offences punishable under sections 366, 368 & 120-8 of IPC and 3(2) SC/ST Act.
Looking to the facts, circumstances, criminal h .pa IT.- antecedents of petitionerjan gravity iof offence but without r.' 9 ' -" .". 1 ia"--, expressing any, 63nion on the merits and demerits of the case, I --* $. P. 2; ' deem it not, proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 0-J -$' 7 Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application/'of the
petitioner is dismissed.
KUMAR SONGARA),J
CHHAYA AWASTHI 14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner facing charges under the NDPS Act given his criminal antecedents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hanuman Gudar
State Of Rajasthan
Chandra Kumar Songara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
