Allowed

Manoj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Dec 2023CRLMB/15884/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in an NDPS case. Finding that no evidence was recovered and the case relied heavily on the contradictory statement of a co-accused, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each each.

Manoj Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:44147]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15884/2023

¶4

Manoj S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Thata Nagar, Bhajan Nagar, Lohawat, Police Staion Lohawat, District Phalodi (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

15/12/2023

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

¶14

tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	133/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Matoda
3.	District	Jodhpur Gramin
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added, if any	Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act
6.	Date of passingof impugned order	11.12.2023

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the

(2 of 2)

[2023:RJ-JD:44147]

[CRLMB-15884/2023]

accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. He has been made an accused in this matter only on the basis of statement of the co-accused. The admissibility of which is under debate. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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.

¶24

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶25

492-Ashutosh/-

Manoj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brijendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamaldeen Vs State

Sejal Ramkumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Muskan Bano Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonal Baheti Vs State of Rajasthan