Allowed

Jaswant v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Aug 2024CRLMB/10084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of two petitioners charged under Section 8/20 NDPS Act. Finding the recovered quantity below commercial levels, the Court ruled that the rigor of commercial quantity provisions was satisfied. Bail was granted on surety with a bond and stipulation to submit bank details and Aadhar within seven days.

What did the court decide?

Release of the accused petitioners on bail provided they furnish a personal bond and two surety bonds, and submit bank details and Aadhar cards within 7 days.

Jaswant Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:34442]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10085/2024

¶4

Lukiya @ Mukesh S/o Muniya, Aged 21 Years, Resident of Gera Samoli, P.S. Mandwa, District Udaipur

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

¶6

----petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10084/2024 Jaswant S/o Kishanlal, Aged 21 Years, Resident of Upli Oadan, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand

¶12

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

¶13

----petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For petitioners(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶19

Order

¶20

21/08/2024

¶21

Petitioners are lugged and locked in F.I.R No.251/2024 of Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur, for the offence under Section(s) 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. They have filed this application for restoration of liberty under section 483 BNSS (Section 439 of old Code).

[2024:RJ-JD:34442]

[CRLMB-10085/2024]

(2 of 3)

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the record.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the different submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that 12.646 Kgs. of contraband cannabis has been recovered in this matter. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

¶27

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions with reference to material placed before me.

¶28

On perusal of the record and upon consideration of the submissions, it would be clear that according to the case spelled out in the FIR, the recovered contraband weighs below commercial quantity therefore, recording of finding envisaged under Section 37 of the Act is not a sine qua non for granting bail. The petitioners are not involved in any other case under the Act and trial of the case will take sufficient time to conclude.

¶29

Having considered the material available on record; the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioners particularly the facts narrated above and the fact that petitioners are in custody since 20.07.2024; that bail rejection order goes to show that petitioners are not involved in any other case under the N.D.P.S. Act; that trial is likely to take its own considerable time and taking note of all these aspects, I do not intend to go into the merits of

[2024:RJ-JD:34442]

[CRLMB-10085/2024]

(3 of 3)

the matter but of the considered view that the rigor of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. act is duly satisfied, forasmuch this court feels that the petitioners have available to them substantial grounds so as to question the prosecution case and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in detention for an indefinite period therefore, I am inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners at this stage.

¶34

Consequently, the present bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioners 1. Lukiya @ Mukesh S/o Muniya 2. Jaswant S/o Kishanlal , arrested in connection with the F.I.R No.251/2024 of Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond and two surety bonds of sufficient amount 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. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release, and sureties on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as copy of front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.

¶35

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶36

74-75-minki/-

Jaswant v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant 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

Kamla Devi Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Singh @ Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tiku Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Das Soni @ Kalu Sindhi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sikandar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan