Allowed

Prakash Vishnoi S/O Vasudev v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2025CRLMB/11851/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS in an NDPS case where recovered contraband was below commercial quantity and a co-accused had been granted bail. Court allowed bail with conditions including monthly police-station presence and a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to monthly police-station attendance till trial concludes.

Prakash Vishnoi S/O Vasudev Vs the State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38446]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11851/2025

¶4

Prakash Vishnoi S/o Vasudev, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sarnada Ki Dhani, Kankelav, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodpur Commissionarate. (At Present In Sub Jail Beawar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh for Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
	Mr. Tapesh Agarwal,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

19/09/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.404/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. It is submitted that other co-accused person namely Vikash has been granted benefit of bail by this court. Trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and there are no

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:38446]

[CRLMB-11851/2025]

criminal antecedents against him. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and aforementioned co-accused person has been granted bail by this court; trial will take considerable time as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Prakash Vishnoi S/o Vasudev, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶24

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording

[CRLMB-11851/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:38446]

(3 of 3)

the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶29

If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

¶30

Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶31

The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

GAUTAM JAIN /46

Prakash Vishnoi S/O Vasudev v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Vishnoi S/O Vasudev v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit @ Monu S/O Mukhram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Singh @ Chinnu S/O Shri Balwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaluram @ Kalu @ Laxman S/O Sh. Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Munna S/O Ramswaroop Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajit Singh S/O Raju Vs the State of Rajasthan

Raisa Bano @ Rani W/O Hakeem Khan Vs State of Rajasthan