Sonu Sangat @ Sunil S/O Mukesh Sangat Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:38352]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8384/2025

Sonu Sangat @ Sunil S/o Mukesh Sangat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Bus Stand Harijan Basti Police Thana Rampura Kotwali District Kota City At Present House No. - 19-20 Ajay Aahuja Nagar Police Thana Anantpura District Kota City Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9390/2025 Chiranjilal @ Raju S/o Foolchand, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Infront Of Chouth Mata Ka Mandir Rajpoot Colony Thana Anantpura District Kota City Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶17

Order

¶18

18/09/2025

¶19

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.166/2025 registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota City for the offence(s) under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:38352]

[CRLMB-8384/2025]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged against the petitioner No.1 Sonu Sangat that contraband article i.e., smack containing 11.18 grams was found in the possession of petitioner which is below commercial quantity. The charge-sheet against the petitioner has already been submitted and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Similarly, against the petitioner No.2 Chiranjilal, it is alleged that he in conspiracy with the petitioner No.1 Sonu Sangat has supplied the contraband article to petitioner No.1. There is no substantive evidence available on record showing that petitioner No.2Chiranjilal has supplied any contraband to petitioner No.1 Sonu Sangat. The petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, these bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these bail applications and contended that both the petitioners are habitual offender and against them, many cases have been registered under various provisions of IPC offences, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed.

¶25

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶26

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the recovered quantity of contraband article i.e., smack is below commercial quantity. The petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time and charge-sheet has already been submitted, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

[2025:RJ-JP:38352]

[CRLMB-8384/2025]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: 1. Sonu Sangat @ Sunil S/o Mukesh Sangat and 2. Chiranjilal @ Raju S/o Foolchand, in connection with FIR No.166/2025 registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota City, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

The accused-petitioners are also directed to mark their presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioners and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioners on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the applications against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶32

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶33

Keshav/103-104

Sonu Sangat @ Sunil S/O Mukesh Sangat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sangat @ Sunil S/O Mukesh Sangat v. 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

Aasif S/O Samsu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kulwant Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Kumar @ Sanju Sorgar S/O Karm Singh @ Labar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Gaura S/O Hardev Gaura Vs State of Rajasthan

Waseem Khan S/O Aslam Vs the State of Rajasthan

Phoolsingh Meena S/O Lakshmichand Meena Vs State of Rajasathan