Guddu Alias Firoz S/O Chand Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:11278]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 691/2026

Guddu Alias Firoz S/o Chand Mohammad, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Kanglipura, Dargah Mohalla Bhawanimandi, Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Presently Confined in Sub Jail At Bhawani Mandi).

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2377/2026 Imtiyaz S/o Shri Chand Mohammad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kanglipura Dargah Mohalla Bhawanimandi Police Station Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar Raj. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Bahwanimandi).

¶11

		----Applicant
	Versus
State of Rajasthan t	hrough PP	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan Mr. Aman Ali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

17/03/2026

¶15

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. 422/2025 registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar for the offence(s) under Sections 8, 21 & 30 of NDPS Act, 1985.

[2026:RJ-JP:11278]

[CRLMB-691/2026]

(2 of 5)

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has submitted that the quantity of contraband smack recovered from the applicants is approximately 1.32 grams and the same is much less than the prescribed commercial quantity of 250 grams. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. It is next submitted that the applicants are in custody since 23.10.2025. It is also submitted that the applicants are sole bread earner of the family and that the applicants are falsely implicated in the matter.

¶20

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the instant bail application and has submitted that the applicants were actively involved in trade/supply of the said contraband in the form of small packets and that there are as many as 23 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, namely Guddu Alias Firoz, and total of 5 criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, namely Imtiyaz. It is further submitted that the applicants are threat to society, therefore, they should not be enlarged on bail. The criminal antecedents of both the applicants are reproduced herein below:

¶21

Criminal record of	Ø e la-	dsl uacj	vijk/k /kkjk	urhtk r¶rh'k	iqfyl Fkkuk	dksVZ fu.kZ;
Guddu @	1	113/1996	8/18 NDPS ACT	53/30.04.9 6	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
Firoz S/o Chand	2	319/2004	4/25 Arms Act	223/11.12. 04	HkokuheaMh	ltk 19-01-05
Mohammad	3	195/2005	4/25 Arms Act	145/18.06. 05	HkokuheaMh	ltk 29-10-05
	4	07/2007	399,402 IPC	12/29.01.0 7	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	5	77/2008	332,353, 143,323, 377 IPC, 3	116/30.04. 08	HkokuheaMh	cjh 25-03-2015

(3 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:11278]

[CRLMB-691/2026]

			PDPP Act 3 SC/ST Act
	6	171/2007	4/25 Arms Act	136/04.08. 07	HkokuheaMh	ltk
	7	227/2007	8/21 NDPS ACT	185/23.10. 07	HkokuheaMh	21-01-09
	8	222/2008	147/332] 307 IPC, 3 PDPP Act		dksrokyh >kykokM	ltk 20-10-07
	9	41/2010	4/25 Arms Act		thvkjih dksVk	isafMax dksVZ
	10	28/2011	4/25 Arms Act	15/29.01.1 1	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	11	283/2011	4/25 Arms Act	286/24.10. 11	dksrokyh >kykokM	isafMax dksVZ
	12	206/2012	4/25 Arms Act	198/31.08. 12	fd'kuiqjk dksVk	isafMax dksVZ
	13	325/2013	4/25 Arms Act	225/10.09. 13	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	14	39/2014	4/25 Arms Act		HkokuheaMh	500 tqekZuk 28-08-17
	15	186/2014	4/25 Arms Act		th vkj ih dksVk	isafMax dksVZ
	16	116/2017	4/25 Arms Act	92/20.05.1 7	HkokuheaMh	500@& tqekZuk 24-11-17
	17	303/2018	4/25 Arms Act	255/14.10. 18	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	18	98/2020	8/21,29 NDPS ACT	99/26.12.2 0	ehJksyh	isafMax dksVZ
	19	362/2021	8/21 NDPS ACT	334/29.10. 21	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	20	563/2021	8/21 NDPS ACT	38/15.02.2 2	jkexateaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	21	95/2023	8/21,29 NDPS ACT	134/09.05. 23	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	22	17/2024	16/54 Ex.Act	30/30.01.2 4	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	23	15/2025	115(2),126 (2),117(2), 3(5)BNS	20/28.02.2 5	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
Criminal record of Ø l	e a-	dsl uacj	vijk/k /kkjk	urhtk r¶rh'k	iqfyl Fkkuk	dksVZ fu.kZ;
Imtiyaz S/o Shri 1		365/2013 I	341,323,34 .P.C.	252/15. 3	10.1 Hkokuhea	Mh isafMax dksVZ
2		430/2013	4/25 Arms Ac	t 298/18.	11.1 Hkokuhea	MhisafMax

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:11278]

[CRLMB-691/2026]

Chand				3		dksVZ
Moham mad	3	95/2013	8/18,29 NSPS Act	156/30.05.1 3	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	4	180/2014	4/25 Arms Act	116/24.05.1 4	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ
	5	15/2025	115(2),126(2), 117(2),3(5)BNS	20/28.02.25	HkokuheaMh	isafMax dksVZ

¶30

Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the applicants are in custody ever since 23.10.2025; that the contraband as recovered is 1.32 grams of smack which is much less than the prescribed commercial quantity i.e. 250 grams; that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case and taking note of the fact that there are total of twenty eight criminal antecedents registered against both the applicants; that the applicants are stated to be a threat to the society if they are enlarged on bail and keeping in mind the sacrosanct objective of Indian criminal reformative system and balancing the equity between right of the liberty, strong criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to enlarge the accused-applicants on bail with following conditions:

¶31

4.1 That the applicants will go for their employment/work and reside 250 kms away from the place of their current residence (i.e. Jhalawar) for a period of six months as the applicants are habitual of committing alike offence.

¶32

4.2 That on every 5^th of successive month, the applicants will mark their attendance before the concerned jurisdictional police station.

[2026:RJ-JP:11278]

[CRLMB-691/2026]

(5 of 5)

4.3 That the concerned SHO of the present place of posting will file cancellation application if the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicants is not complied with regard to change of residences for the appropriate period.

¶37

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant Guddu Alias Firoz S/o Chand Mohammad & Imtiyaz S/o Shri Chand Mohammad shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

A copy of the present order be placed in the connected application.

¶39

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶40

JKP/25-26

Guddu Alias Firoz S/O Chand Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Alias Firoz S/O Chand Mohammad 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

Pankaj S/O Karulal 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

Kunal Sharma S/O Sh. Rajesh Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar S/O Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Mohan Sharma S/O Lt. Shri Brajmohan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan