Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mohanram S/O Virmaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:1062) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:1062]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 112/2025
Mohanram S/o Virmaram, R/o Vishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Modathali,
Dhava, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central
Jail, Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia PP with
Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
08/01/2025
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is
arrested in connection with FIR No. 429/2022 registered at Police
Station Beawar Sadar District Ajmer for the Offence(s) under
Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B
of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the
applicant is the sole bread earner of the family and is aged
approximately 37 years, and has no criminal antecedents
registered against him. It is further submitted that the present
application is filed due to the change in circumstances i.e. filing of
the charge sheet, after rejection of the first bail application dated
03.09.2024. Moreover, no effective recovery is made from the
applicant. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by
Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.
(Downloaded on 18/01/2025 at 12:08:17 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:1062] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-112/2025]
16642/2023 titled as Shince Babu vs. The State of Kerala &
Anr.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the
applicant and submitted that the instant bail application is ought
to be rejected considering the commercial quantity recovered from
the applicant. It is further submitted that the first bail application
was rejected after noting the justified reasons and relying upon
judgment of Apex Court, by way of a speaking order. Further, it is
submitted that the charge sheet has affirmed the allegations
leveled against the applicant qua the offence being committed
under the provisions of NDPS Act and Section 420, 120B and allied
provisions of IPC. Lastly, it is submitted that the fast tag recovered
from the car was registered under the name of applicant.
4. Heard and considered.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and taking note of the fact that a recovery of
commercial quantity of NDPS substance is made from the
applicant; that the fast tag of the vehicle in question is registered
under the name of the applicant; that the charge-sheet has
affirmed the allegations leveled against the accused-applicant and
looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but
without commenting upon the merits/demerits, this Court is
inclined to dismiss the instant bail application.
6. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
ANIL SHARMA /30
(Downloaded on 18/01/2025 at 12:08:17 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)