Allowed

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLMB/5785/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused-petitioner charged under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that since the recovered contraband was below commercial quantity, Section 37 of the NDPS Act was not attracted, regarding bail suitable due to the likely delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21207]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5785/2024 Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Makhan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No.08, Jhandwala, Sikhan, Police Station Sangria, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Lodged In Sub Jail, Sangria)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus
The State Of Rajasthan,Through PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh,P.P.

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶7

Order

¶8

10/05/2024

¶9

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 tabulated herein below:

¶10

S. No.	Particular	s of the Case
1.	FIR Number	256/2024.
2.	Concerned Police Station	Sangariya.
3.	District	Hanumangarh.
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	U/Sec. 8,15 of NDPS Act.
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	07.05.2024.

¶11

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the

¶12

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

[2024:RJ-JD:21207]

[CRLMB-5785/2024]

(2 of 2)

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶21

Abhishek Kumar S.No.643

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh 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

Rampal Vs State of Rajasthan

Harshit Kumar Kewlani Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sher Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan