Harindra Rathi S/O Sarjeet Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36884]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11484/2025

¶4

Harindra Rathi S/o Sarjeet, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bar Gurjar Khedki, Dholla, Gurugram.

¶5

Balwan Urf Balle S/o Vishram Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Milakpur, Police Station Phulbaag, District Khairthal, Tijara. (Accused Petitioner Are In Judicial Custody In District Jail Kotputali- Behror)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11619/2025 Mohit Mohan S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o House No. 1068, Sector-10A, Gurugram. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Kotputli, Kotputli-Behror).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Manish Gupta
	Mr.	Dinesh Chand Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	N.S. Dhakar, PP with
	Mr.	Gaurav Gupta,Asstt. G.A.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶18

Order

¶19

11/09/2025

¶20

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.223/2025 registered at Police Station

[2025:RJ-JP:36884]

[CRLMB-11484/2025]

(2 of 3)

Sarund, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and trial will take considerable time it its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶26

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

¶27

I have considered the contentions.

¶28

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also the fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity; there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners 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 these bail applications.

¶29

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Harindra Rathi S/o Sarjeet,

¶30

(2) Balwan Urf Balle S/o Vishram Singh & (3) Mohit

¶31

Mohan S/o Shri Madan Lal shall be released on bail provided each of them 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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:36884]

[CRLMB-11484/2025]

satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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 them by this Court.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶42

LALIT MOHAN /251-252

Harindra Rathi S/O Sarjeet v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harindra Rathi S/O Sarjeet v. the 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

Ajit Kumar S/O Govinda Vs State of Rajasthan

Hansraj S/O Mohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivdayal S/O Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Papparam S/O Shri Chokharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Gupta S/O Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Chand S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan