Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2875 (RAJ)

Gagandeep Soni v. State of Rajasthan

2022-12-05

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.215/2022, Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that 220 tablets of Tramadol weighing 89.54 gms were recovered from the applicant’s possession and such quantity is below commercial quantity. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant is behind the bars since 03.09.2022 and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. While submitting that the trial of the case is likely to take sufficient time, learned counsel prayed that applicant be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that one more case of like nature is pending against the applicant and thus, his application be not allowed. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the quantity of contraband substance and considering the fact that the applicant is behind the bars for more than three months, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Gagandeep Soni S/o Shri Jogendra arrested in connection with FIR No.215/2022, Police Station Purani Abadi, District Sri Ganganagar 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. 8. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. 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.