Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2860 (RAJ)

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2022-12-02

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.144/2022, Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar for the offence under Section 8/15 & 25 of N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the contraband recovered from the applicant’s possession was 2 kg poppy straw, which is below commercial quantity and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. He submits that neither any recovery is to be made nor the investigation is pending and the applicant is behind the bars since 15.09.2022. He therefore, prays that the applicant be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposed the bail application inter-alia highlighting that one more case of like nature is pending against the applicant and he is a habitual offender. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the quantity of contraband recovered from the applicant and the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed so also the fact that neither any recovery is to be made nor any investigation is pending and the trial is likely to take some time, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 5. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash arrested in connection with FIR No.144/2022, Police Station Muklawa, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 6. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.