Allowed

Ganpat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2024CRLMB/280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case involving offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29. The court noted recovery was below commercial quantity, a co-accused had been granted bail, and trial would take time; Section 37 embargo held not attracted. Bail granted on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1958]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 280/2024

¶4

Ganpat S/o Shree Gopi Banjara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jhikariya Rudi Thana Mansa Dist. Neemach (Mp) (At Present At Dist. Jail Bhilwara).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus State Of Rajasthan,Through Pp ----
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktiyar Khan,Dy.G.A.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶9

Order

¶10

12/01/2024

¶11

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 below:

¶12

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	634/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Subhash Nagar
3.	District	Bhilwara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	8/15 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added, if any	8/29 of the NDPS Act
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	20.12.2023

¶13

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

[2024:RJ-JD:1958]

[CRLMB-280/2024]

(2 of 2)

grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

¶18

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.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The coaccused Mukesh has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023. 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶22

15-Samvedana/-

Ganpat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat 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

Bharat Patidar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammd Suhel Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Piyush Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand @ Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra @ Bhavesh @ Bhura Vs State of Rajasthan