Allowed

Balvindra Singh S/O Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2025CRLMB/1689/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by two accused arrested for possessing 12.740 kgs poppy husk, below commercial quantity, under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act. Court granted regular bail citing quantity below commercial threshold, absence of criminal antecedents, period of custody, and likely delay in trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and sureties, subject to monthly police-station attendance and other conditions till trial concludes.

Balvindra Singh S/O Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh Vs State… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:4825]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1689/2025

¶4

Balvindra Singh S/o Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o House No. 531, Bhinder Kala, Police Station Dharmkot, District Moga (Punjab).

¶5

Karmjeet Singh S/o Nattha Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mansi Ka, Police Station Nihal Singh, District Moga (Punjab).

¶6

(Presently Confined In Sub Jail At Bhawani Mandi).

¶7

----Accused-Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Jhala, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP, Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

04/02/2025

¶15

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.7/2025 registered at Police Station Pagaria, District Jhalawar for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband poppy husk (12.740 kgs) is below commercial quantity. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time. He

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:4825]

[CRLMB-1689/2025]

argues that the petitioners are in custody since 18.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶21

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

¶22

I have considered the contentions.

¶23

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband poppy husk is below commercial quantity; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take 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 proper to allow the bail application.

¶24

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Balvindra Singh S/o Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh and 2. Karmjeet Singh S/o Nattha Singh 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 satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that each of them 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.

¶25

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:4825]

[CRLMB-1689/2025]

mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

MADAN/243

Balvindra Singh S/O Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvindra Singh S/O Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh 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

Govind Ram S/O Gangaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhimsingh S/O Kanwarsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Chintu S/O Amichand Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Mali @ Raju Kaka S/O Moolchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeepkumar S/O Shri Bagad Singh Vs State of Rajasthan