[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fussaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12509) on 16 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12509]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3242/2026
Fussaram S/o Jagdish, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Vishnoiyon Ki Dhaaniyan, Bhaniya, P.s. Shivpura, District Pali
Raj.. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Robin Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/03/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Dangiyawas
3. District Jodhpur
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 04.02.2026
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12509] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3242/2026]
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. The accused-petitioner FussaRam was arrested in connection
with a case involving allegations of illegal transportation of
contraband. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner
was granted interim bail for a limited duration with a direction
to surrender before the concerned Court on 28.02.2024.
However, the petitioner failed to surrender on the stipulated
date and consequently he was declared absconding.
6. It is borne out from the record that the petitioner remained
absent for a considerable period of about eleven months and
has now appeared before the Court. The act of the petitioner
in not surrendering within the stipulated period undoubtedly
amounts to breach of the conditions of bail and has, to some
extent, impeded the smooth course of the trial. However, at
the same time, this Court takes note of the fact that the
petitioner had earlier been considered worthy of being
enlarged on bail. The petitioner has now appeared before the
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12509] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3242/2026]
Court and has undertaken that he shall remain present before
the trial Court and shall not indulge in any conduct which may
obstruct or delay the proceedings of the trial.
7. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that co-accused
Rakesh, who was similarly situated and had also jumped bail,
has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
08.08.2025. Thus, on the ground of parity as well, the case of
the present petitioner deserves consideration.
8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view. There is
high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.
In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the
present matter.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.
10. At the same time, the delay occasioned in the proceedings
owing to the petitioner's conduct cannot be ignored.
Therefore, in order to balance the equities and to compensate
the system for the delay caused, this Court deems it
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12509] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3242/2026]
appropriate to impose costs of proceedings upon the
petitioner. The petitioner shall also deposit a sum of
₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as costs of
proceedings with the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA),
Jodhpur Metropolitan. Upon furnishing the requisite bail
bonds and proof of deposit of the aforesaid amount, the
petitioner shall be released forthwith, if not required in any
other case.
(FARJAND ALI),J
463-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 06:42:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
