Allowed

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 May 2026CRLMB/7132/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of 29.28 grams Mephedrone from a co-accused, below commercial quantity. Allegation rested on the co-accused's statement; court granted bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to the trial court's satisfaction.

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:19778]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 7132/2026

¶4

Rahul Kumar S/o Sunil Kumar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 421/2, Durga Ashram, Chhatarpur, Police Station Mehroli, New Delhi, At Present At A-58, Suman Chowk, Street Of Yogmaya Hospital, Chhatarpur, Police Station Mahroli, New Delhi. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini Mr. Ashok Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

11/05/2026

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.37/2026 registered at Police Station Daulatpura (Jaipur-Ajmer-Highway), District Jaipur (West) for offence under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of statement of the co-accused. It has also been alleged that the co-accused from whose possession the alleged contraband has been recovered was provided by the present accused-petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that there is no evidence as

[2026:RJ-JP:19778]

[CRLMB-7132/2026]

(2 of 3)

regards money transaction between the accused-petitioner and co-accused and so also there is no conversation so as to connect the accused-petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submits that there is no criminal antecedents to the discredit of the present accused-petitioner and the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Learned counsel also submits that the alleged contraband which has been recovered from possession of the coaccused is 29.28 gram Mephedrone which is less than the stipulated commercial quantity and the accused-petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2026.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that on sending the mobile handset of the accused-petitioner for FSL, it has come out that there was some conversation between the accused-petitioner and the other coaccused.

¶21

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶22

Mere statement of the co-accused cannot be made a basis for conviction of an accused.

¶23

Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the allegation against the accused-petitioner is based upon the statement of the co-accused and the fact that the alleged contraband which has been recovered from possession of the co-accused is less than commercial quantity, this Court

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:19778]

[CRLMB-7132/2026]

without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

In case the accused-petitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution may move application for cancellation of his bail.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

RAVINDRA /10

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Kumar Singh 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

Gopal Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Arvind Saini S/O Shri Birbal Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pankaj Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Lal Bhadur Yadav and Ors. Vs Rahul Yadav

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep S/O Sitaram Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan