Rajasthan High Court
Ghanshyam S/O Mangilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:4824) on 30 January, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:4824]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1066/2024
Ghanshyam S/o Mangilal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Mahuakho
Police Station Aklera District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined
In District Jail, Jhalawar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
30/01/2024
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.341/2023 registered at Police Station
Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar for the offence under Section 8/21
of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for
the offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He
submits that false case has been registered against the petitioner.
He further submits that no contraband has been recovered from
the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that according
to the prosecution case, one Golu son of Devilal was found in
possession of contraband and he has already been granted bail.
Counsel submits that on the basis of police interrogation of the co-
[2024:RJ-JP:4824] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1066/2024]
accused, petitioner has been made accused in this matter.
Petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2023. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. Charge-sheet has been
filed and trial will take considerable time. He also contends that
further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and
submits that two other cases have been registered against the
petitioner and he is deeply involved in drug trafficking.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that no recovery has
been made from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused
of this case has already been granted bail; so also keeping in view
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020
SC 5592; charge-sheet has been filed as well as looking to the
custody period, but without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail
application.
6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner - Ghanshyam S/o Mangilal shall be
released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two
[2024:RJ-JP:4824] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1066/2024]
sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the
stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to
which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing
and as and when called upon to do so.
7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve
in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court.
The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the
concerned police station on 1 st and 15th of every month, till trial is
concluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or
come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason
for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to petitioner by this
Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
DEEPA RANI -17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
