Dismissed¶¶27

Vishal @ Nonu S/O Sushil Tanwani v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 May 2025CRLMB/5372/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jaipur HC (Praveer Bhatnagar, J., 05/05/2025) dismisses 4th bail application of Vishal @ Nonu (S.B. Criminal Misc. 4th BA No. 5372/2025) under S. 483 BNSS for S. 8/20 NDPS offences, FIR 280/2024, P.S. Bassi: cumulative charas ~1 kg 75 g exceeds 1 kg commercial quantity; Court weighs S. 37 NDPS impact and recalls its earlier dismissal dated 29.11.2024; bail refused at this stage despite incarceration since 25.05.2024.

What did the court decide?

Weighing the impact of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the cumulative quantity of about 1 kg 75 grams recovered from the petitioner and other co-accused, this Court held itself not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail at this stage. ¶¶26

Vishal @ Nonu S/O Sushil Tanwani Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18727]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 5372/2025

¶4

Vishal @ Nonu S/o Sushil Tanwani, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. 231, Sindhi Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, At Jaipur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶9

Order

¶10

05/05/2025

¶11

The instant fourth bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 280/2024, registered at Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur City (East), for the offence(s) under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

¶12

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the after dismissal of second bail application three witnesses have been examined. The cumulative quantity recovered from the petitioner and other co-accused comes around 1kg 75grams which is above the marginal quantity. Commercial quantity of c haras is 1Kg.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Mallikarjun Vs. State of Karnatka passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.L) No. 3341/2023 order dated 22.01.2024 whereby

[2025:RJ-JP:18727]

[CRLMB-5372/2025]

(2 of 3)

appellant Mallikarjun was released on bail considering the cumulative quantity recovered from the appellant and other coaccused and also considering the length of incarceration which was around one year. It is further contended that the malkhana in-charge in his cross examination has admitted that the quantity of charas recovered from the petitioner and other co-accused was inclusive of polythene bag in which they were packed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Seetaram @ Ballu Vs. State of Rajashan (SB Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application 13774/024) whereby learned coordinate Bench allowed the bail application after considering the marginal higher commercial quantity. It is also contended that the accusedpetitioner is behind the bars since 25.05.2024 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and contended that rider contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory. This court vide order dated 29.11.2024 while considering the cumulative quantity recovered from the petitioner and other co-accused and also considering the impact of Section 37 of the NDPS Act dismissed the bail application. Maximum punishment for transporting the commercial quantity under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act is 20 years.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor relies upon the judgment passed in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 Livelaw (SC) 613 whereby Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground to dilute the conditions enshrined

[2025:RJ-JP:18727]

[CRLMB-5372/2025]

(3 of 3)

under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶26

This court vide order dated 29.11.2024 dismissed the bail application of the accused-petitioner after considering the impact of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as well as cumulative quantity recovered from the accused-petitioner and other co-accused. The cumulative quantity recovered from the petitioner and other coaccused comes around 1KG 75gram. At this stage, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, instant fourth bail application preferred by accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

ashu /4

Vishal @ Nonu S/O Sushil Tanwani v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal @ Nonu S/O Sushil Tanwani v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Kumar Choudhary Son of Late Shri Ramnath, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeetu Son of Ramcharan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaushalya Devi W/O Mahendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishorya @ Kishore and Ors. Vs State

Samandar Singh Son of Bhammal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Geeta Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp