Allowed

Sitaram Saini S/O Shri Parmanand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2025CRLMB/10006/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving alleged recovery of 18.19 gms smack. No recovery from the petitioner's possession, contraband below commercial quantity, no criminal antecedents, and prolonged trial were considered; bail granted with conditions including monthly police-station attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to conditions including monthly police station presence.

Sitaram Saini S/O Shri Parmanand Saini Vs State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30857]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10006/2025

¶4

Sitaram Saini S/o Shri Parmanand Saini, R/o Ward No. 6, Shahpura, District Jaipur (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

08/08/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.234/2025 registered at Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under 8/21 of NDPS Act. Investigation is being conducted against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that matter pertains to recovery of 18.19 gms of smack. Counsel submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of police interrogation of the co-accused who was found in possession of contraband. Counsel submits that

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:30857]

[CRLMB-10006/2025]

alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner; alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity; there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶22

The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Sitaram Saini S/o Shri Parmanand Saini shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all

[2025:RJ-JP:30857]

[CRLMB-10006/2025]

(3 of 3)

subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

¶28

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶29

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

¶30

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶31

11 . The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

LALIT MOHAN/358

Sitaram Saini S/O Shri Parmanand Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Saini S/O Shri Parmanand Saini 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

Mangat Singh S/O Didar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim S/O Zakir Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan

Intjar Ahmed S/O Shri Sakil Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Porwal S/O Late Shri Mangilal Porwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra S/O Shri Umraav Singh Vs State of Rajasthan