Allowed

Rajunath v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Mar 2023CRLMB/822/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting bail to a petitioner charged under the NDPS Act. The court allowed bail noting the petitioner was not named in the initial FIR and there was no independent evidence placing him at the recovery spot, relying only on subsequent disclosures by co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/007827]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 822/2023

¶4

Rajunath S/o Kananath, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Baldarkha Ps Bassi Dist. Chittorgarh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kailash Chandra Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

28/03/2023

¶13

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.75/2022, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act .

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 18 quintal 19 kgs and 900 gms poppy straw was recovered from possession of the main accused Mohanlal, Gopal, Sunil and Chetan and weighing 4 kgs and 350 gms opium was recovered. The presence of the accused-petitioner is not soon in the FIR. Accused Mohanlal, Sunil, Chetan and Gopal have later on disclose the name of accused Rajunath in the commission of the said offence. Apart from their disclosure, there is no other evidence of presence of

[2023/RJJD/007827]

[CRLMB-822/2023]

(2 of 2)

accused-petitioner Rajunath at the place of recovery. The accusedpetitioner is in judicial custody since 09.08.2022.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently oppose the bail application and concedes that in the FIR name of petitioner Rajunath is not mentioned.

¶21

Considering the fact that in the FIR, name of accusedpetitioner is not mentioned and co-accused have later on disclosed the name of petitioner, there is no other evidence indicating commission of crime by accused-petitioner Rajunath, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may kindly be allowed.

¶22

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rajunath S/o Kananath, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.75/2022, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

85-Hanuman/-

Rajunath v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajunath 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

Mangi Lal Vs State

Seva Vs U.O.I.

Vikas @ Pariyo Vs State of Rajasthan

Shiwanu Grour Vs State

Bhawaniram @ Bhani Vs State

Suresh Bishnoi Vs State