Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/3748/2026 of RAJURAM S/O SATYANARAYAN Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 15 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3748/2026 Rajuram S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ghayalon Ki Dhani, Dangiyawas, P.s. Dangiyawas Dist. Jodhpur (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail Jhalawar) ----Petitioner
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3748/2026
Rajuram S/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ghayalon Ki Dhani, Dangiyawas, P.s. Dangiyawas Dist. Jodhpur (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail Jhalawar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5132/2026
Shrawan S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Khatiyasani, Dangiyawas, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (Presently Confined In District Jail Jhalawar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Deepak Bishnoi
Mr. Lalit Kanwar Shekhawat
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Aarti Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
15/04/2026
1. These bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners u/S 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 49/2026 registered at Police Station Sarola, District Jhalawar for offences punishable u/S 8/15 & 30 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor.
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-3748/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that during patrolling by the police, the accused petitioners were searched and a total of 56 gm. of illegal drug doda chura was recovered. He further submits that the alleged contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the accused petitioners. He further submits that the recovery effected from the possession of the accused petitioners is less than the commercial quantity. He further submits that the accused petitioners are behind the bars since 20.02.2026 and after conclusion of investigation, the Police has submitted charge-sheet in the matter, therefore, the petitioners may be released on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is a recovery of 56 gm. doda chura from the possession of the petitioners, therefore, they does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.
5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The allegation against the petitioners relates to commission of offence under the provisions of Section 8/15 & 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the alleged recovery from him is of 56 gm. doda chura which is stipulated to be less than the commercial quantity. The restriction for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not apply in the present case.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-3748/2026] arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:- “The allegations against the appellant relate to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Alleged recovery from him is about 35 kgs. and 150 grams Doda Posh (Poppy straw). The commercial quantity for poppy straw is 50 kgs. The appellant is in custody for over seven months. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. The recovered contraband item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in his case. We do not think his continued detention pending trial is necessary in the given circumstances.”
8. Having regard to the submissions and the discussion made above, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.
9. Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided that they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only)(each), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3748/2026] matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
10. In case the accused-petitioners are found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution may move application for cancellation of their bail. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /62-63