Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/12434/2026 of SUDAMA S/O LALCHAND Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 13 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12434/2026 CNR: RJHC020762162026 | URN: CRLMB / 22949U / 2026 Sudama S/o Lalchand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Mudauti, Tan Akodiya, P.s. Arai, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12434/2026
CNR: RJHC020762162026 | URN: CRLMB / 22949U / 2026
Sudama S/o Lalchand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Mudauti, Tan Akodiya, P.s. Arai, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jhunjhunu).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Avadesh Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Aarti Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
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
13/08/2026
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No. 143/2025, registered with the Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the changed version of co-accused ‘Neetu Kumar’. He further submits that soon after intercepting the vehicle, co- accused ‘Neetu Kumar’ deposed to the Police Officers that the two persons who have run away are ‘Vikas’ and ‘Pritam’ and lateron he changed his version and stated that the two persons, who were along with him, are ‘Sudama’ and ‘Jairam’.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-12434/2026] petitioner has been made accused on the basis of changed version of aforesaid co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.01.2026 and no any Contraband has been recovered from his possession and there is also no any connected evidence against him. He further submits that trial of the case will take long time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehementaly opposed the bail application and states that on very same day co-accused ‘Neetu Kumar’, from whose possession the alleged Contraband was recovered stated that the present petitioner was with him in the vehicle.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan paper.
5. The present petitioner is said to be made an accused on the basis of the second version of co-accused ‘Neetu Kumar’ and he is in custody since 27.01.2026.
6. In view of the fact that accused-petitioner has been implicated on the basis of the changed version of the co-accused ‘Neetu Kumar’, the false implication cannot be ruled out, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. This second bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-12434/2026] Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J RAVINDRA /165