Allowed¶18

Pankaj S/O Karulal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Mar 2026CRLMB/384/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail under Section 483 BNSS; NDPS Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 20 & 29; ganja recovery approx. 1.633 kg against 20 kg commercial quantity threshold; FIR No. 211/2025, PS Sunel, District Jhalawar; charge-sheet filed; custody since 16.11.2025; applicant sole bread earner, aged about 20; personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; single judge (Sameer Jain, J); CRLMB-384/2026; Rajasthan HC Jaipur, order dated 16/03/2026.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS allowed; accused-applicant Pankaj S/o Karulal to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. ¶18

Pankaj S/O Karulal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10986]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 384/2026

¶4

Pankaj S/o Karulal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Oosav Police Station Raipur District Jhalawar

¶5

(At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj)

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus State of Rajasthan through PP
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma,PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶10

Order

¶11

16/03/2026

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 211/2025 registered at Police Station Sunel District Jhalawar for the offence(s) under Sections 8, 20 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the applicant is sole bread earner of his family, aged about 20 years. It is further submitted that approximately 1.633 kilograms of ganja has been recovered from the applicant which is much less than the prescribed commercial quantity of 20 kilograms. It is lastly submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and that the applicant is behind bars since 16.11.2025. 3. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant bail application.

[2026:RJ-JP:10986]

[CRLMB-384/2026]

(2 of 2)

Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, considering that the applicant is sole bread earner of his family, aged about 20 years; that the recovered quantity of ganja is much less than the prescribed commercial quantity; that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter; that the applicant is behind bars since 16.11.2025, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant and enlarge him on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant Pankaj S/o Karulal shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶19

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶20

JKP/23

Pankaj S/O Karulal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj S/O Karulal 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

Aslam S/O Umardeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Shakir Hussain S/O Mohammed Usman Vs State of Rajasthan

Devchand Alias Deepchand S/O. Amarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabir Khan S/O Hamida Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Prasad S/O Bhanwar Lal @ Bhanwar Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Banjara S/O Balram Banjara Vs State of Rajasthan