Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/11870/2026 of RAJPAL S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 1 September 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11870/2026 CNR: RJHC020706982026 | URN: CRLMB / 21852U / 2026 Rajpal S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bindola, P.s. Patodi, District Gurgaon, Haryana, At Present R/o House No. 1109, Sector
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11870/2026
CNR: RJHC020706982026 | URN: CRLMB / 21852U / 2026
Rajpal S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Bindola, P.s. Patodi, District Gurgaon, Haryana, At Present R/o House No. 1109, Sector No. 5, R.k. Purak, P.s. R.k. Puram, New Delhi. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
01/09/2026
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
1. FIR Number 142/2021
2. Concerned Police Station Baandar Sindari
3. District Ajmer
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned order 13.06.2026
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-11870/2026] 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. The principal ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present bail application is that of prolonged incarceration. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that, vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12535/2023, this Court had enlarged one of the co-accused, namely, Kishan Kumar, on bail, primarily taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by him during the pendency of the trial. The present petitioner has remained in custody for a period even longer than that undergone by the said co- accused. 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.
5. 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
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-11870/2026] 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. (FARJAND ALI),J 48/YOGESH KUMAR