[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16718) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16718]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 14243/2025
Ramesh Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Dhani Rohi 03 Ntrnetharam,police Station Gogamedi,tehsil
Bhadra,district Hanumangarh,rajasthan Lodged In District
Jail,bhadra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
09/04/2026
This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.134/2022 registered at Police Station Gogamedi,
District Hanumangarh, for offence under Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of
the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel submitted that, as per the prosecution case,
on 05.06.2022, while a police team from Police Station Gogamedi
was on routine patrolling duty, it received secret information.
Acting thereupon, the police conducted a search at the residence
of the present petitioner and allegedly recovered contraband,
namely poppy husk/straw, weighing total 637 kg and 600 grams,
contained in 35 plastic sacks, from his conscious possession.
Thereafter, he was arrested.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 06:57:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16718] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14243/2025]
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
30.06.2022. He further submitted that out of total 16 cited
prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution witnesses have been
examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted
that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since last more
than three years and nine months and looking to the pace at
which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the
same is not likely to be concluded in near future.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs.
State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023
and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.
On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing
trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the
present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway.
Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute
the fact that in last more than three years and nine months, out of
total 16 cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been
examined till date.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 06:57:44 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16718] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14243/2025]
petitioner has suffered incarceration for last more than three years
and nine months and out of total 16 cited prosecution witnesses,
only 5 witnesses have been examined till date, without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to
be accepted.
Accordingly, the third bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-
Ramesh Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh shall be enlarged on bail in
connection with FIR No.134/2022 registered at Police Station
Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh, provided he furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to do so.
In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of
hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking
unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of
concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The
prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move
an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner today by this Court.
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
259-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 06:57:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
