AJAY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: MANEESH SHARMA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-07. AJAY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37830] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10627/2026 CNR: RJHC010804402026 | URN: CRLMB / 23194U / 2026 Ajay S/o Shri Rupa Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 114 Jagdmba Colony Pratapnagar Sadar, Jodhpur, At Present Mamta Nagar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati, through V. C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP, through V. C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/08/2026 1. The matter was heard through video conferencing. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous application for interim bail has been filed by the petitioner-Ajay, seeking interim bail for a period of 30 days on the ground that his wife-Smt. Seema, aged about 24 years, is pregnant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's wife-Smt.
Seema, aged about 24 years, is pregnant, which is evident from the 'Mamta Card' annexed with the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner's presence is required to support his wife. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on interim bail for a period of 30 days. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application and submits that the interim bail [2026:RJ-JP:37830] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10627/2026] application of the petitioner has already been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 01. 08. 2026 in Interim Bail Application No. 147/2026 (1295/2026). He further submits that there is a possibility of the petitioner absconding, and looking to the gravity of the offence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on interim bail. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the petitioner's wife-Smt. Seema, aged about 24 years, is pregnant and is expected to deliver a child in the upcoming week, as is evident from the 'Mamta Card' annexed with the bail application, this Court finds that the petitioner's presence is required to support his wife.
Thus, adopting a humanitarian view of the matter, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on interim bail for a period of 20 days from the date of his actual release, subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authorities immediately upon expiry of the interim bail period of 20 days, unless the period is extended by a Competent Court; (ii) the petitioner shall neither tamper with the evidence in the matter, nor directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any one acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer; (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the State of Rajasthan without prior permission of the Court concerned; [2026:RJ-JP:37830] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10627/2026] 7. The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned jail authorities on the morning immediately following the expiry of the period of interim bail of 20 days. 8.
It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to surrender after the expiry of the stipulated period of interim bail, the concerned authorities shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against him in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application for extension of interim bail is allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J 1/Keshav
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.