Vinod Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramkaran Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:37606]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5837/2025

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramkaran Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Bandawala Ka Mohalla, Andhi, Police Station Andhi, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ghatgate Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7178/2025 Pawan Sharma S/o Sh. Shivprasad Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kuthada, Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11488/2025 Jitendra Sharma S/o Shri Pyarelal Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Chavand Mata Mandir Ke Pass Kototiyan Mohalla, Andhi, Police Station Andhi, Dist Jaipur Rural (Petitioner Is In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma
		Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
		Mr. Gaurav Gupta,Asst. G.A.

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶22

Order

¶23

16/09/2025

¶24

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:37606]

[CRLMB-5837/2025]

connection with FIR No.42/2025 registered at Police Station Andhi, District Jaipur Rural for offences under Sections 8/21 and 8/22 of NDPS Act.

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. It is submitted that coaccused, who is juvenile, was found in possession of Tramadol capsules. It is contended that said juvenile has been granted benefit of bail by Children’s Court under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is argued that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that co-accused who is juvenile was found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband. It is submitted that petitioners are key persons who supplied the drugs through juvenile.

¶31

I have considered the contentions.

¶32

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of petitioners, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion,

[2025:RJ-JP:37606]

[CRLMB-5837/2025]

(3 of 4)

but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶37

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramkaran Sharma, (2) Pawan Sharma S/o Sh. Shivprasad Sharma, and (3) Jitendra Sharma S/o Shri Pyarelal Sharma, shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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.

¶38

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

¶39

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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.

¶40

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

[2025:RJ-JP:37606]

[CRLMB-5837/2025]

(4 of 4)

If any breach 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 them by this Court.

¶45

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶46

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶47

CHARU SONI /69-71

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramkaran Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramkaran Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsi @ Narendra S/O Rameshwar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Abhishek Son of Manoj Kumar Surela, Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Gurjar Son of Shri Madan Lal Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

National Investigating Agency Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhav Kumar Saini @ Mintu @ Chandi S/O Rajesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Jairam Devasi S/O Mangilal Devais Vs C.B.N.