PARMESHWAR KUMAR PRAJAPAT vs State — 226/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: RJAJ010007582026

Filing Number

520/2026

Filing Date

05-Mar-2026

Registration No

226/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Court

DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ

Judge

4-Addl District and Sessions Judge III

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Refused

Last updated 02-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

128

Police Station

Bhinai

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PARMESHWAR KUMAR PRAJAPAT

    Adv. Bhanwar Singh Gaur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    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.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl District and Sessions Judge III

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 226/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case