Dismissed¶21

Imran Son of Shri Iqbal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2026CRLMB/10435/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-charge-sheet NDPS bail refused (Rajasthan HC Jaipur, 08.07.2026, Anoop Kumar Dhand J.): 8 g MDMA recovered at accused Imran's instance, below 10 g commercial quantum (Ss. 8, 22, 25 NDPS Act 1985); parity plea based on co-accused Rashid's bail (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appn. No. 10029/2026, order dt. 03.07.2026) did not yield bail; bail dismissed under S. 483 BNSS as investigation ongoing; renewal permitted after charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Since the charge-sheet had not been submitted and the matter remained at the investigation stage, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. ¶20

Imran Son of Shri Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:25524]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10435/2026 URN: CRLMB / 19350U / 2026

¶4

Imran Son of Shri Iqbal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident of Rajasthan, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Fatehpur, Sikar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Tayyab Ali
	Mr. Mirza Shoaib Ur Rehman
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat-PP

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

08/07/2026

¶13

The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with the FIR No. 99/2026 registered at the Police Station Nechhwa, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contraband article i.e. 8 grams MDMA has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner which is less than the commercial quantity i.e. 10 grams. Counsel submits that the co-accused person Rashid has already been granted indulgence of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10029/2026, therefore, the same indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner as well.

[2026:RJ-JP:25524]

[CRLMB-10435/2026]

(2 of 2)

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there was no recovery at the instance of the co-accused person- Rashid, the recovery has been effected at the instance of the present petitioner. Counsel submits that the matter is still at the investigation stage, hence the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶20

Considering the arguments raised by learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that the charge-sheet has not been submitted yet and the matter is still at investigation stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after submission of charge-sheet and after completion of investigation.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

Ashu/44

Imran Son of Shri Iqbal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Son of Shri Iqbal 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

Mukesh Kumar Meena S/O Late Gopal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh S/O Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Verma S/O Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Son of Mohan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S S.N.M. Enterprises Vs District Collector, Jaipur

Ramji Lal S/O Late Shri Jagdish Meena Vs State of Rajasthan