[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bheru Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13922) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13922]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3128/2026
Bheru Lal S/o Hajari, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Keljar,
Police Station Vijaypur, District Chittorgarh Rajasthan, At Present
Near Nilkanth Mahadev Mandir,sanganer Colony, Police Station
Subhasnagar, Bhilwara Raj.. (Presently Lodged In District Jail,
Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ali.
Mr. Aslam Khan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
24/03/2026
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been
arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2025 registered at Police
Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 8/29
of the NDPS Act and 238 of BNS.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the
prosecution, on 02.01.2025, the police intercepted a truck bearing
registration No. MP-07-HB-7059. The police, after following the
procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act, searched the said
vehicle and recovered contraband (ganja) weighing 665 kgs, out
of which 500 kgs were concealed in plastic crates. Learned counsel
submitted that, as per the prosecution, the driver of the offending
vehicle, Shri Bhagchand @ Seru, in his disclosure statements,
divulged that the recovered contraband (ganja) was to be supplied
to the present petitioner.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:52:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13922] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3128/2026]
Drawing the attention of the Court to various documents
annexed with the case file, learned counsel submitted that, as per
the prosecution, co-accused Bhagchand was in regular contact
with the present petitioner through mobile numbers 9602423912,
while the petitioner was allegedly using mobile number
9571430790. Learned counsel further submitted that no mobile
phone has been recovered from the petitioner by the investigating
agency, nor was SIM No. 9571430790 registered in the name of
the present petitioner. It was thus contended that the petitioner
has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the
disclosure statements of the co-accused Bhagchand, without there
being any direct or circumstantial evidence available against him
on record.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has
been in judicial custody, the investigation against him has already
been concluded, and the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Therefore, it was prayed that the benefit of bail be granted to the
accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender
and, therefore, does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that, in the
present case, contraband of commercial quantity was not
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. This
Court further prima facie finds that, though as per the prosecution
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:52:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13922] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3128/2026]
the petitioner was in contact with co-accused Bhagchand through
mobile No. 9571430790, neither any mobile phone was recovered
from the possession of the petitioner nor is there any material to
show that the said SIM was issued in the name of the petitioner.
The learned Public Prosecutor has also not expressed any specific
apprehension that the petitioner may indulge in similar offences or
abscond if enlarged on bail.
In the opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act stand satisfied in the facts of
the present case.
Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner Bheru Lal S/o Hajari arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.02/2025 registered at Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara,
shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided
he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
301-Tikam/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 05:52:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
