SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 913

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
HEMRAJ MEENA S/O SHRI RAMKARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1405 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

The court granted anticipatory bail due to lack of substantive evidence against the accused-petitioner and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Section 8/20 - Anticipatory bail application - The accused-petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with FIR for drug-related offences, claims false implication and lack of substantive evidence against him, as contraband was recovered from a co-accused - The court considers the absence of direct evidence linking the accused-petitioner to the crime and his willingness to cooperate with the investigation - Thus, anticipatory bail is granted under Section 482 BNSS. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Conditions for bail - The petitioner must provide a personal bond and ensure availability for interrogation, while refraining from influencing witnesses and not leaving the country without court permission. (Paras 6)

Order :

1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.531/2024 registered at Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act , the accused- petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the recovery of contraband articles were effected from the possession of other co-accused Rohit Sahu and he has named the accused-petitioner. Apart from the possession of the disclosure statement of the other co-accused, there is no substantive evidence available on record. The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, anticipatory bail of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and contended that the accused- petitioner is a habitual offender and against him, two similar nature of cases were registered, therefore, considering the criminal antecedents of the accused-petitioner, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. Considering the fact that the recovery of contraband articles containing 1Kg 750 grams Ganja were effected from the other co- accused Rohit Sahu and apart from the disclosure statement of Rohit Sahu, there is no substantive evidence available on record, that the accused-petitioner has supplied the Ganja to the other co-accused. The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Hemraj Meena S/o Shri Ramkaran, in connection with FIR No.531/2024 registered at Police Station Sanganer, District Jaipur City (East), he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top