Allowed

Mahendra Mehra S/O Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2025CRLMB/15367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a third bail application by the accused in an NDPS case involving the recovery of 1.300 kg of ganja. Relying on Puranmal Jat, the Court held that since the quantity was below the commercial limit, Section 37 restrictions did not apply. The accused was enlarged on bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Mahendra Mehra S/O Satyanarayan Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1299]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 15367/2024

¶4

Mahendra Mehra S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 1 Notara Maliyan, P.s. Sultanpur, Dist. Kota. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

09/01/2025

¶13

This third bail application has been filed by the accusedpetitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with FIR No. 140/2024 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 20 & 25 of NDPS Act.

¶14

The Second Bail Application bearing No.12170/2024, was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after statement of the Seizure Officer before the trial Court and the First Bail Application bearing No.9046/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Seizure Officer has been examined before the trial Court. Counsel further submits that the contraband that is Ganja alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of the accused-petitioner and

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:1299]

[CRLMB-15367/2024]

co-accused Siknder is 1.300 Kg which is less than the commercial quantity stipulated under the law. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2024 and the trial will take its own time and therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the third bail application and submits that there is recovery of Ganja 1.300 kg from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, he does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.

¶21

Considered the submissions made at Bar. 6. The allegation levelled against the accused-petitioner relates to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8, 20 & 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the alleged recovery of Ganja 1.300 kg is stipulated to be less than the commercial quantity. The restriction for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not apply in the present case.

¶22

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:-

¶23

“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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:1299]

[CRLMB-15367/2024]

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.”

¶28

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-petitioner on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, this third bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

DIVYA SAINI /12

Mahendra Mehra S/O Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mehra S/O Satyanarayan 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

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pyara Singh and Ors. Vs State

Jagdish Meena S/O Radhakishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar S/O Ramdayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Siraj Ahmed S/O Shri Israr Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Jain S/O Bhagchand Jain Vs Smt. Mamta W/O Virendra Kumar Mansinghka