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

Case disposed

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

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

13-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

Final Orders / Judgements

13-03-2026
Judgement

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ADJ NASIRABAD TALUKA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case