[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishal Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5648) on 30 January, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:5648]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1352/2026
Vishal Kumar S/o Bhwanishankar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Chak 8 Gbd Vijaynagar Ps Jaitsar District Anupgarh Sri
Gangangar (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumanagarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1353/2026
Rajesh S/o Rampratap, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No 07
Chak 2 Mgm B Rojari Police Station Gharsana District Anoopgarh
At Present District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged At Dist.
Jail Hanumanagrh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Bishnoi
Mr. Devilal Rawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
30/01/2026
These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have
been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection
with FIR No.428/2024 registered at Police Station Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of
the NDPS Act.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:24:32 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5648] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1352/2026]
Learned counsel submitted that, as per the prosecution, during
nakabandi at Dulmaana Bus Stand, Rohi Dulmaana, at midnight
on 25.07.2024, a team from Police Station Pilibanga apprehended
a white Hyundai Verna car bearing registration No. RJ-14-CX-
3200, which was being driven by petitioner - Vishal Kumar.
However, he fled from the place of incident, and his identity was
disclosed by petitioner - Rajesh the co-passenger, who did not
escape. Upon conducting a search, the police team recovered
contraband poppy husk/straw, weighing a total of 68 kilograms.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since
26.07.2024. He further submitted that till date, out of total 14
cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 prosecution witnesses have
been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further
submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the
petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners is in judicial custody
since last more than one year and six months and looking to the
pace at which trial is being conducted against the present
petitioners, 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. Learned
counsel further submitted that the petitioners do not have any
criminal antecedents.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:24:32 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5648] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1352/2026]
On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the
petitioners on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed these bail applications and submitted that petitioners are
facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the
present bail applications deserves to be rejected straightway.
Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute
the fact that in last more than one year and six months, out of
total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, only 2 prosecution witnesses
have been examined till date.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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
petitioners have suffered incarceration for last more than one year
and six months and out of total 14 cited prosecution witnesses,
only 2 prosecution 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 applications filed by the
petitioners deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1)
Vishal Kumar S/o Bhwanishankar and (2) Rajesh S/o
Rampratap shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR
No.428/2024 registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District
Hanumangarh, provided each of them 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 their appearance
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:24:32 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5648] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1352/2026]
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to so.
In case, the petitioners remain 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 them by this Court. The
prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move
an application(s) seeking cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioners today by this Court.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
applications. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
321-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:24:32 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
