CRLMB/4948/2026 of MUKESH KUMAR S/O GOPALRAM Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JP:16962] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4948/2026 Mukesh Kumar S/o Gopalram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Dhani Redaan, Tan Piploda, Police Station Shapura, Tehsil Shapura, Dis- trict Jaipur. (Presently In Judicial Custody At District Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 22/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 6 9/2026 registered at Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur Rural for offence under Sections 8, 21, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that as per the F.I.R., the allegation levelled against the present accused-petitioner is that 183.91 gram Tramadol has been recovered from his possession, which is less than commercial quantity. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 16.03.2026 and no other case of similar nature is pending against the accused-petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:16962] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4948/2026] and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is a recovery of 183.91 gram Tramadol from the possession of the accused-petitioner, therefore, she does not deserve indulgence of bail by this Court. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record. 5. The allegation against the petitioner relates to commission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8, 21, 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the alleged recovery from her is of 183.91 gram Tramadol, which is stipulated to be less than commercial quantity. The restric - tion for grant of bail under the provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act does not apply in the present case. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puranmal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.3394/2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10670/2023 decided on 02.11.2023 has enlarged the accused therein on bail and observed as under:- “The allegations against the appellant relate to com- mission of offence under the provisions of Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called “the Act”). Alleged recovery from him is about 35 kgs. and 150 grams Doda Posh (Poppy straw). The commercial quantity for poppy straw is 50 kgs. The appellant is in custody for over seven months. Charge-sheet has [2026:RJ-JP:16962] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4948/2026] been submitted in the case. The recovered contra - band item having weight less than the stipulated commercial quantity, the restriction on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act does not apply in his case. We do not think his continued detention pend- ing trial is necessary in the given circumstances.” 7. Having regard to the submissions made above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lax Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. However, it is made clear that in case the accused- petitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of this bail order. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /46