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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 10681

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
GANESH RAM MEENA
MAHESH S/O ROOPSINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 2271 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:14091]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.

2271/2026 Mahesh S/o Roopsingh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Aagaree, Police Station Karauli Sadar, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (At

Present Confined In Jail, Hindaun City).

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Sing Solanki, Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

06/04/2026

1. 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. 0046/2026 registered at Police Station New Mandi Hindaun, District Karauli for

offence under Sections 8, 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that as per the F.I.R., the allegation levelled against the present accused-petitioner is that 7 gram 46 milligrams smack has been recovered from his possession, which is less than commercial quantity. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2026 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude,

therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:22:09 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:28:47 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:14091] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2271/2026] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is a recovery of 7 gram 46 milligrams smack from the possession of the accused-petitioner,

therefore, he does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court.

4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also

perused the material made available on record.

5. The allegation against the petitioner relates to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8, 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the alleged recovery from him is of 7 gram 46 milligrams smack, which is stipulated to be less than 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.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 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

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 10:22:09 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 07:28:47 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:14091] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2271/2026]

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.”

7. Having regard to the submissions made above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-

petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lax Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which

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