Mukesh S/O Biramchand Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:3344]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15828/2025

¶4

Mangilal S/o Dalchand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Chhipi Mohalla, Baswa, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) (Presently In Sub Jail Aklera)

¶5

Jitendra Singh @ Lala S/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Near Sabji Mandi, Bandikui, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa (Raj.) (Presently In Sub Jail Aklera)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 387/2026 Mukesh S/o Biramchand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mahuakho Police Station Aklera At Present Sarda Police Station Bhalta District Jhalawar (Raj) At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Aklera District Jhalawar Raj

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Umesh Vyas
	Mr.	Rohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary,PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶18

Order

¶19

23/01/2026

¶20

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.413/2025 registered at Police Station

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:3344]

[CRLMB-15828/2025]

Ghatoli, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/29 & 8/30 of the NDPS Act.

¶25

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. They submit that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. It is submitted that other co-accused person namely Mukesh S/o Banwarilal has already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that petitioners- Mangilal and Jitendra Singh are habitual offenders as several other cases have been registered against them.

¶27

I have considered the contentions.

¶28

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 is below commercial quantity and aforementioned co-accused person has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; trial will take time in its conclusion 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 applications.

¶29

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is

[2026:RJ-JP:3344]

[CRLMB-15828/2025]

(3 of 4)

directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Mangilal S/o Dalchand,

¶34

2) Jitendra Singh @ Lala S/o Gopal Ram & 3) Mukesh S/o

¶35

Biramchand shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:3344]

[CRLMB-15828/2025]

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

¶44

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶45

GAUTAM JAIN /58-59

Mukesh S/O Biramchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh S/O Biramchand 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

Raju Jangid Son of Lt. Shri Satyanarayan Jangid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Neelu S/O Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sima Kumari Kumawat D/O Bhagchand Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar S/O Mohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Bairwa Son of Shri Sukhdev, Vs Dara Singh Bairwa Son of Shri Kesar Lal

Bhagwandas S/O Dhansingh Vs State of Rajasthan