[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9632) on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9632]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2426/2026
Ajay Prakash S/o Santosh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Ward No.26, In Front Of Old Post-Office, Churu Rajasthan
(At Present Lodged At District- Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2229/2026
Vikas Saharan S/o Shri Hetram Saharan, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o House No.13/312, Sector No.13 Mukul Prasad Colony,
Bikaner. (Lodged In Sub Jail Ratangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Ravindra Kumar Charan
Mr. Manish Dadhich
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order
23/02/2026
1. The petitioners have filed these bail applications under
Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.159/2025 registered at Police
Station Ratangarh, District Churu for offence under Sections 8/22,
29 of NDPS Act.
2. Since both these bail applications arise out of common FIR,
hence, they are being decided by this common order.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:25:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9632] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2426/2026]
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. They
further submit that nothing has been recovered from the present
petitioners and the person namely Mumtaj Ali from whose
conscious possession 303 gram Clovedol (Tramadol) and 1382.04
gram Alprazolam tablets (which is above commercial quantity) has
been recovered, got the benefit of bail on 24.01.2026. They
further submits that the allegation against the petitioners Ajay and
Vikas is that they are the purchaser and supplier of the above
contraband respectively which falls under Section 29 of NDPS Act.
They also submits that the petitioners are behind the bars since
05.06.2025 with one cases each of similar nature. They further
argued that the main accused Mumtaj Ali has also one case of
similar nature and he has been granted benefit of bail. The trial of
the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody.
Hence, on the ground of parity, the bail application of the
petitioners may be allowed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail
application.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions and material
available on record and in the light of submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioners especially on the ground of parity but
without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I
am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:25:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9632] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2426/2026]
7. Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483
B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners No.1
Ajay Prakash S/o Santosh Kumar Sharma and No.2 Vikas Saharan
S/o Shri Hetram Saharan, be released on bail provided each of
them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of them shall
appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till
conclusion of the trial.
(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J
63-64-amit/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 04:25:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
