CHENA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-07. CHENA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37741] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8787/2026 CNR: RJHC010631032026 | URN: CRLMB / 19106U / 2026 Chena Ram S/o Gunesha Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhatarwalo Ka Sara, Chhitar Ka Par P. s. Nagana, District Barmer. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Barmer ) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP assisted by Mr. Omprakash Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 07/08/2026 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F. I. R. No. 56/2026 registered at Police Station Nagana, District Barmer for the offence under Sections 8/15, 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is quite an innocent person. He has falsely been implicated in this case.
The allegedly recovered contraband substance (21 Kg 158 Grams of Poppy Straw) is below commercial quantity, as prescribed under the NDPS Act and, as such, rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act of not releasing the accused on bail is not attracted. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner are clear. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 25. 06. 2026 and trial of case is likely to take a long time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:37741] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8787/2026] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed application, however, is not in a position to refute the aforesaid submissions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and finds that the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity.
It is stated that there are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 25. 06. 2026. 6. Hence, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case; conclusion of the trial of the case is likely to take time; the narcotic contraband alleged to be recovered from the petitioner is below commercial quantity; the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS. 7. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Chena Ram S/o Gunesha Ram, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR, it not wanted in any other case, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J 304/Deepta Arora
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.