Allowed

Dharmendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2025CRLMB/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case (Sections 8/18) involving contraband below commercial quantity. Court held Section 37 embargo not attracted and trial likely to take long, and enlarged the accused on bail with bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to satisfaction of trial judge.

Dharmendra Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JD:961]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 65/2025 Dharmendra S/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Danvara (Basni), Ps Kherapa Dist. Jodhpur Rural. At Present Chak 08 Psd, Ps Rawla Dist. Sriganganagar At Present Dist. Anupgarh. (Lodged In Sub Jail Anupgarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chandra Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Addl.G.A.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶10

07/01/2025

¶11

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

¶12

tabulated herein below:

¶13

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	18/2024
2.	Concerned Police Station	Rawla
3.	District	Anupgarh
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	21.12.2024

¶14

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. His incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against

[2025:RJ-JD:961]

[CRLMB-65/2025]

(2 of 2)

grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case.

¶19

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶20

I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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 as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶23

86-Ashutosh/-

Dharmendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra 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

Lokesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Murti Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Loonaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gursewak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Majid @ Machi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Salvi Vs State of Rajasthan