Ravi Nayak S/O Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:1495]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16110/2025

Devendra Singh @ Sheesha Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Rajeev Gandhi Pathshala Kalibanga Police Thana Kalibanga District Hanumangarh Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Kota).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16732/2025 Ravi Nayak S/o Omprakash, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 08, STB Nayka Wala Chak, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Kota).

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv., and
	Mr. Om Prakash Pareek,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶17

13/01/2026

¶18

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.388/2025 registered at Police Station Nayapura, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:1495]

[CRLMB-16110/2025]

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that alleged recovered contraband poppy straw (13.370 kgs) is below commercial quantity. They argue that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They further contend that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders as other cases have been registered against them.

¶24

I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband poppy straw is below commercial quantity; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶25

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Devendra Singh @ Sheesha Singh S/o Gurdeep Singh, and (2). Ravi Nayak S/o Omprakash shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of

[2026:RJ-JP:1495]

[CRLMB-16110/2025]

(3 of 3)

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only), out of which, one must be furnished by his family member/close relative, 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.

¶30

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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.

¶31

Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. 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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶36

MADAN/43-44

Ravi Nayak S/O Omprakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Nayak S/O Omprakash 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

Jitendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Aryan S/O Parshuram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayani Devi Alias Seema Wife of Sumer Vs State of Rajasthan

Khubiram S/O Bhagwat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chaturbhuj S/O Bhagwanaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amit Sharma S/O Late Vijay Ratan Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan