Kartik Rathore S/O Pradeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 July, 2026

    0
    2
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

    Kartik Rathore S/O Pradeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 July, 2026

    [2026:RJ-JP:25997]
    
            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                        BENCH AT JAIPUR
    
         S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7459/2026
                         URN: CRLMB / 13582U / 2026
    
    Kartik Rathore S/o Pradeep Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
    Village Shyampura Kalva, Police Station Parbatsar, Nagaur
    District Nagaur. At Present Plot No. 9 Kalyan Colony, Khatipura
    Mod, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
    (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
                                                              ----Accused Petitioner
                                        Versus
    State of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                     ----Respondent

    For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate
    with Mr. Sarwat Alam, Advocate
    Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka Advocate
    For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, Addl. GA
    Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, Dy.

    GA
    Mr. Devi Singh Chaudhary, Dy. GA

    SPONSORED

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

    Order

    10/07/2026

    1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner

    under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in FIR No. 0044/2026 registered at

    Police Station, Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur (West) for the offence

    under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act, 1985.

    2. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

    petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. The petitioner

    was not informed the grounds of his arrest. The arrest of the

    petitioner is in violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of

    India as also Section 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioner is in

    (Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 12:52:10 PM)
    (Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:25997] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7459/2026]

    judicial custody since 7.2.2026. The conclusion of trial is likely to

    take long time, hence he may be released on bail.

    3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance

    upon the following judgments:

    I) Prabir Purkayastha Versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in

    (2024) 8 Supreme Court Cases 254

    II) Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana and Another reported

    in (2025) 5 SCC 799

    III) Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and Another

    reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500

    IV) Dr. Rajinder Rajan Versus Union of India & Anr. – 226 LiveLaw

    (SC) 327

    V) Jhabra Ram Versus State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal

    Misc. Bail Application No. 4778/2026

    4. Learned Addl. GA as well as learned Dy. GA have

    opposed the same and submit that as per point no. 10 of the

    arrest memo, the grounds of arrest were duly informed to the

    petitioner. They further submit that from the arrest memo

    detailing out the facts of the case, it is clear that the accused had

    substantive knowledge of the offence and the reason for his

    detention. The petitioner was in custody on the basis of judicial

    order. Thus, it cannot be said that his arrest was illegal. They

    further submit that procedural lapses and technical irregularities

    cannot be used to defeat justice. They further submit that after

    investigation, when the offence was found to have been made out

    against the petitioner, charge sheet was filed against him. They

    further submit that during search, 10.79 Gms. M.D. Drug was

    found from the clothes of the petitioner. The said contraband

    (Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 12:52:10 PM)
    (Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:25997] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7459/2026]

    article is more than commercial quantity. They further submit that

    2 other cases were registered against the petitioner, out of which

    one case is related to NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner is a habitual

    offender, hence he should not be granted bail.

    5. In support of their contentions, they have place reliance

    upon the judgment 15.12.2025 passed by the Allahabad High

    Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19091 of 2025 titled Nitin

    Kumar Singh @ Nitin Versus State of UP and 4 others.

    6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances

    of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that 10.79

    Gms. M.D. Drug, which is more than commercial quantity, was

    recovered from the petitioner, without commenting on the merits

    and demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to

    grant bail to the petitioner.

    7. Accordingly the bail application filed by the petitioner is

    dismissed.

    (BHUWAN GOYAL),J

    DK/8

    (Uploaded on 14/07/2026 at 12:52:10 PM)
    (Downloaded on 15/07/2026 at 12:31:39 AM)

    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here