Allowed

Hastimal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2024CRLMB/105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused petitioner challenged his incarceration via bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court observed that recovered contraband was below commercial quantity, rendering Section 37 NDPS Act inapplicable. The application was allowed with a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs 25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3345]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 105/2024

¶4

Hastimal S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Badli, Nagaur Kotwali Police Station Nagaur, District Nagaur (Lodgd In District Jail Nagaur )

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Godara
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Purohit,AGA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶11

22/01/2024

¶12

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

¶13

below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	802/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kotwali Nagaur
3.	District	Nagaur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	8/15 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added, if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	03.01.2024

¶15

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 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 accused-petitioner. The embargo

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:3345]

[CRLMB-105/2024]

contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

¶20

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.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶24

40-Samvedana/-

Hastimal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hastimal 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

Om Prakash Vishnoi Son of Bhikaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Subham @ Golu Son of Late Shri Pratap Singh Bhadana Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansraj S/O Nand Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalita Vs State of Rajasthan

Salim Khan Vs State of Rajasthan