MURTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: FARJAND ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2025-01-06. MURTI DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2025:RJ-JD:762] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 62/2025 Murti Devi W/o Shri Budharam, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Dantor, Tehsil Khajuwala, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Haniya Mr. Bharat Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy. G. A. Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, Asst. G. A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 06/01/2025 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 134/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Nai Mandi Gharsana 3. District Anupgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 and 25 of the NDPS Act 5.
Offences added, if any Under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned 21. 12. 2024 order 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against her and she has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. Her incarceration is not warranted. There are [2025:RJ-JD:762] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-62/2025] no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. The embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J 305-Ashutosh/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.