Dismissed

Tapesh Choudhary S/O Purkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2023CRLMB/1077/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The petitioner charged with transporting opium exceeding commercial quantity was denied bail due to the gravity of the offense. The court briefly noted the practice of non-cooperation by advocates but proceeded to dismiss the plea.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner denied bail; Bail Application dismissed.

Tapesh Choudhary S/O Purkharam Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1077/2023

¶3

Tapesh Choudhary S/o Purkharam, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Jasnath Nagar, Khetsar P.s. Osian, District- Jodhpur, At Present In Central Jail Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/03/2023

¶12

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court Administration.

¶14

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal Vs. Union Of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one, rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties and/or their Advocates.

¶15

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.188/2021 Registered at Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶16

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1077/2023]

¶17

Petitioner in his pleadings mentioned that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since more than 15 months. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the pleadings of the petitioner and submitted that he was transporting 38.720 Kg opium, which is more than commercial quantity. So, the bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

¶19

I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner as well as arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶20

Allegation against the petitioner is that he was transporting 38.720 Kg opium, which is more than commercial quantity. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application stands dismissed.

¶22

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶23

Gourav/15

Tapesh Choudhary S/O Purkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapesh Choudhary S/O Purkharam 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

Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son of Shri Ikramudeen Kureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mosin Khan S/O Nisar Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Chaudhary S/O Shri Chauthmal Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh S/O Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tara Singh S/O Atar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan