RAM KISHAN JIYANI AND OTHERS vs State — 66/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Contested--Bail Granted on 13th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: RJAJ290002302026
Filing Number
123/2026
Filing Date
11-03-2026
Registration No
66/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
Court
ADJ NASIRABAD TALUKA
Judge
1-ADJ
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Granted
FIR Details
FIR Number
78
Police Station
Nasirabad Sadar
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAM KISHAN JIYANI AND OTHERS
Adv. RAJESH CHAND LAKHAN
Respondent(s)
State
TOLA RAM
TARA CHAND GITHALA
VISHNU PAREEK
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 66/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED bail to all four petitioners (Ram Kishan Jiyani, Tola Ram, Tara Chand Githala, and Vishnu Parik) in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of 70.29 kg of poppy husk. Each petitioner must furnish two sureties of ₹25,000 each and a personal bond of ₹50,000, with the condition of regular court attendance. Key Reasoning: The court found procedural violations in the investigation, specifically that the accused were searched without a magistrate's supervision as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Considering the investigation time required, the accused's permanent residence, family ties, clean criminal records, and lack of flight risk, bail was justified despite the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 66/2026 Court Decision: The court GRANTED bail to all four petitioners (Ram Kishan Jiyani, Tola Ram, Tara Chand Githala, and Vishnu Parik) in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of 70.29 kg of poppy husk. Each petitioner must furnish two sureties of ₹25,000 each and a personal bond of ₹50,000, with the condition of regular court attendance. Key Reasoning: The court found procedural violations in the investigation, specifically that the accused were searched without a magistrate's supervision as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Considering the investigation time required, the accused's permanent residence, family ties, clean criminal records, and lack of flight risk, bail was justified despite the serious nature of the charges. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts