PARMESHWAR KUMAR PRAJAPAT vs State — 226/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 09th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ010007582026
Filing Number
520/2026
Filing Date
05-03-2026
Registration No
226/2026
Registration Date
05-03-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ
Judge
4-Addl District and Sessions Judge III
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Refused
FIR Details
FIR Number
128
Police Station
Bhinai
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARMESHWAR KUMAR PRAJAPAT
Adv. Bhanwar Singh Gaur
Respondent(s)
State
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Addl District and Sessions Judge III
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary Parmeswhar Kumar Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan (Advance Bail Petition No. 226/2026) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer rejected the advance bail petition filed by Parmeswhar Kumar Prajapat, who was accused of selling substandard fertilizer in violation of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Section 3/7) and Fertilizer Control Order 1985 (Section 19), along with charges under BNS Sections 318(4) and 61(2). The court found that investigation was ongoing and evidence showed seizure of defective fertilizer, requiring further investigation; therefore, granting advance bail would prejudice the investigation process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Parmeswhar Kumar Prajapat v. State of Rajasthan (Advance Bail Petition No. 226/2026) The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ajmer rejected the advance bail petition filed by Parmeswhar Kumar Prajapat, who was accused of selling substandard fertilizer in violation of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Section 3/7) and Fertilizer Control Order 1985 (Section 19), along with charges under BNS Sections 318(4) and 61(2). The court found that investigation was ongoing and evidence showed seizure of defective fertilizer, requiring further investigation; therefore, granting advance bail would prejudice the investigation process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts