Allowed

Maneesh Meena S/O Natholiram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Oct 2024CRLMB/8096/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of 7 gram 83 milligram smack from one petitioner and implication of the other via a co-accused's statement. Court granted bail, noting the quantity was below commercial quantity.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to the trial Judge's satisfaction.

Maneesh Meena S/O Natholiram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:43852]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8096/2024

¶4

Maneesh Meena S/o Natholiram Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mahaswa, P.S. Balghat, District Gangapur City. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Hindaun City).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11536/2024

¶11

Mukesh Meena @ Mukki S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mahswa, Police Station Balghat, District Gangapur City, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Karauli).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Prasad Meena Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶18

Order

¶19

19/10/2024

¶20

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.105/2024 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Gangapur City for the offence under Section 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

[2024:RJ-JP:43852]

[CRLMB-8096/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner-Maneesh submits that the recovery of alleged contraband from the possession of the petitioner is 7 gram and 83 miligram smack, which is less than the commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16.06.2024, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶25

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner-Mukesh Meena @ Mukki submits that on the basis of the statement of the coaccused he has been made an accused in the present case as the alleged contraband was given by him to the co-accused-Maneesh. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 06.08.2024, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications and submits that there is a recovery of 7 gram and 83 miligram smack , therefore, the accused-petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.

¶27

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶28

The recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused-petitioner-Maneesh is less than stipulated commercial quantity and the accused-petitioner Mukesh Meena @ Mukki has been made an accused on the basis of the statement of the coaccused.

¶29

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:43852]

[CRLMB-8096/2024]

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:-

¶34

“The allegations against the appellant relate to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Alleged recovery from him is about 35 kgs. and 150 grams Doda Posh (Poppy straw). The commercial quantity for poppy straw is 50 kgs. The appellant is in custody for over seven months. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The recovered contraband item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in his case. We do not think his continued detention pending trial is necessary in the given circumstances.”

¶35

Having regard to the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶37

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶38

Ashish Kumar /69-70

Maneesh Meena S/O Natholiram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh Meena S/O Natholiram Meena 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekhsingh S/O Hariprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Meena S/O Shri Prabhu Dayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Meena S/O Babulal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay @ Ajjunath S/O Rajunath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramcharan S/O Mohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish S/O Mahadev Vs State of Rajasthan