Surender S/O Amraram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:2816]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13074/2024

Sumer S/o Mangilal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Silawaton Ka Bas, Bhainser Kuthri, Police Station Mathania, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Harish Chandra Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S.R. Dhakar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

21/01/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.145/2024 registered at Police Station Bassi, (Jaipur City, East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. He further submits that the recovery of the contraband articles containing 18.376 Kg of opium were effected from the other co-accused namely: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Vijay Prasad and Shiv Kumar Mistri. It is also contended that on the disclosure statement of the Vijay Kumar Gupta, the accused-petitioner has been involved in this case, apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused, no other reliable evidence available against the accused-petitioner. It is also

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:2816]

[CRLMB-13074/2024]

contended that the investigating agency concluded that the other co-accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, Vijay Prasad and Shiv Kumar Mistri from whom the said recovery was effected were in contact with the present accused-petitioner through his mobile number. It is also contended that merely being in contact through mobile number cannot be assumed that the contraband articles were going to be supplied to the accused-petitioner. There is no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner and charge-sheet has already been produced before the concerned Court, the accusedpetitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that from the main accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, the commercial quantity of opium was recovered and in his disclosure statement, he has revealed that the contraband articles were going to be handed over to the present accused-petitioner, the investigation also shows that the accusedpetitioner was in contact with the main accused Vijay Kumar Gupta through his mobile number, therefore, considering the rider imposed under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the fact that the recovery of contraband article containing weight of 18.376 Kg of opium were effected from the other co-accused namely:- Vijay Kumar Gupta, Vijay Prasad and Shiv Kumar Mistri, from a car bearing No. Rj-19-CE-1639. Apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused Vijay Kumar

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:2816]

[CRLMB-13074/2024]

Gupta, Vijay Prasad and Shiv Kumar Mistri, and mobile connectivity of the accused-petitioner, there is no other direct evidence available on record against the accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, thus, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sumer S/o Mangilal in connection with FIR No.145/2024 registered at Police Station Bassi, (Jaipur City, East), District Jaipur City (East) 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 and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶28

Keshav/4

Surender S/O Amraram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender S/O Amraram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghisa Lal Kumhar Vs State and Ors.

Anil Kumar Bairwa S/O Shri Munshi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aman Aasopa S/O Shri Shekhar Aasopa, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lucky @ Harshit S/O Shri Chandraprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Kumar S/O Durgaram Vs State of Rajasthan