Allowed

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/O Late Shri Lalluram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2025CRLMB/10014/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a drug cultivation case. Finding the accused was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, without opining on the merits of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant-accused released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/O Late Shri Lalluram… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31423]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10014/2025

¶4

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/o Late Shri Lalluram Meena, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Meeno Ki Dhani, Sirsi Police Station Bindayaka, Jaipur (At Present Accused Is In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal with Mr. Keshav Dadhich and Mr. Pranav Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/08/2025

¶13

This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/o Late Shri Lalluram Meena, in FIR No. 185/2025 dated 29.07.2025 registered at P.S. Bindayaka District- Jaipur, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act.

¶14

The applicant was arrested on 28.07.2025 and is in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that without making

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:31423]

[CRLMB-10014/2025]

compliance of mandatory provision under the NDPS Act the present case is registered against the petitioner accused. He further submitted that police has registered a case of cultivation of cannabis plant on a vacant land of common khatedari with present petitioner accused. He further referred police investigation and submitted that there is no record to show that the land in question is in exclusive possession or cultivation of present petitioner accused. He also submitted that even this petitioner accused is not aware about cultivation of cannabis plant. He further submitted that the investigation and trial will take its own time and there is no other case against the petitioner accused. Learned counsel has further referred Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act and submitted that live plants are not included in the definition of Ganja and and same cannot be termed as “Ganja”.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

¶22

On 28.07.2025 when Sub-Inspector Mohan Singh was on daily patrolling duty then the found plants of cannabies in one boundary wall and on check he found that one Raj Kishore @ Raju Meena is caretaker and he recovered 74 green plants of cannibies and registered a criminal case under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. Having considered the

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:31423]

[CRLMB-10014/2025]

totality of facts and circumstances of the and also the fact that this is a case of cultivation of cannabies.

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicantaccused.

¶28

Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicantaccused Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/o Late Shri Lalluram Meena, is hereby allowed and the applicantaccused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶30

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶31

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:31423]

[CRLMB-10014/2025]

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

¶36

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶38

CHETNA BEHRANI /169

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/O Late Shri Lalluram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkishore Meena @ Raju Meena S/O Late Shri Lalluram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Auric Infraprojects Limited Vs Amit Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta

Surendra Yadav S/O Laxminarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramood Kumar S/O Sh. Bheemsingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

David S/O Dharasingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Riyazudeen S/O Mehrajudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas Vishnoi S/O Sukhram Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan