Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Leeladhar @ Anil vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39830) on 8 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:39830]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10041/2025
Leeladhar @ Anil S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Ward No.9, Morjand Khari Police Station Sadulshahar District
Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri
Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 08/09/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 439/2023
2. Concerned Police Station Sadar Ganganagar
3. District Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/22 of the NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 08.08.2025
order
2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that On 23.08.2023, at around 5:40 PM, Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar, (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] SHO of Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, intercepted a grey Swift Dzire (DL9CAK 4582) parked on National Highway 62. The occupant, Liladhar alias Anil, attempted to flee but was apprehended. A search revealed five boxes containing 2500 Tramadol tablets (total weight 1125 grams), possession of which requires a license under the NDPS Act, which the accused did not have. The petitioner stated that he bought the tablets from Gurmel Singh, and his statement was recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act. He was arrested, and the seized tablets were properly sampled and documented. Investigation revealed the tablets were sourced from another accused, Beant Singh. A charge sheet was filed against the applicant under Sections 8, 22, and 25 of the NDPS Act, and charges were framed under Sections 8, 22, and 29. of the NDPS Act. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.15890/2024 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025. Hence the instant bail application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5.1. The prosecution case unfolds that on 23.08.2023, police officials from Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, led by the SHO, intercepted a grey Swift Dzire bearing registration number DL9CAK 4582, which was found parked along National Highway
62. The vehicle's occupant, identified as Liladhar alias Anil, attempted to abscond upon sighting the police but was promptly apprehended. Subsequent search of the vehicle resulted in the seizure of five boxes containing a total of 2,500 Tramadol tablets, amounting to 1,125 grams in weight. It is pertinent to note that possession of such quantity necessitates a valid license under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which the accused failed to produce. Upon interrogation, the petitioner admitted to having procured the tablets from one Gurmel Singh, and his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
5.2. This Court feels weight in the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has disregarded the procedural safeguards enshrined under Rules 3, 8, 9, and 13 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2022'), which compounds the legal infirmity so also ignored the guidelines issued by the Govt. Of India in this regard. 5.3. Post-search and seizure, the contraband items purportedly recovered at the spot were marked and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. However, no inventory was (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] duly prepared or verified in the presence of the competent Magistrate as mandated by Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the samples that were allegedly verified in the Magistrate's presence were inexplicably not forwarded for scientific examination to the FSL.
5.4. This egregious deviation from the prescribed procedure contravenes the Standing Orders Nos. 1/1988 and 1/1989 issued by the Government, as well as the statutory requirements under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. This procedural lapse is a grave irregularity, as any conviction predicated on such defective seizure and sampling would be unsustainable, given that the FSL report, based on improperly taken samples, would lack evidentiary credibility.
5.5. It is pertinent to highlight that, pursuant to the powers vested under Section 52-A read with Section 76 of the NDPS Act, the Central Government, through the Department of Finance, promulgated a Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2022. This notification introduced the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022, which came into immediate effect. These Rules of 2022 comprehensively delineate the procedural framework for classification, seizure, sealing, storage, sampling, and disposal of contraband substances under the NDPS Act.
5.6. For ease of reference, it is essential to reproduce and examine the pertinent provisions of the Rules of 2022, which embody the statutory requirements designed to safeguard the (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of the seizure and investigative processes, which are as under-
3. Classification of seized material. -
(1) The narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances seized under the Act shall be classified based on physical properties and results of the drug detection kit, if any, and shall be weighed separately.
(2) If the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances are found in packages or containers, such packages and containers shall be weighed separately and serially numbered for the purpose of identification.
(3) All narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances found in loose form shall be packed in tamper proof bag or in container, which shall be serially numbered and weighed and the particular of drugs and the date of seizure shall also be mentioned on such bag or container:
Provided that bulk quantities of ganja, poppy straw may be packed in gunny bags and sealed in such way that it cannot be tempered with:
Provided further that seized concealing material such as trolley bags, backpack and other seized articles shall be sealed separately.
(4) The classification, weighing, packaging and numbering referred to in this sub-rule shall be done in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drugs and substances was recovered and a mention to this effect shall invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot of seizure.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] (5) The detailed inventory of the packages, containers, conveyances and other seized articles shall be prepared and attached to the panchnama.
6. .........
7. ........
8. Application to Magistrate. - After the seized material under the Act is forwarded to the officer-in- charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53 of the Act or if it is seized by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an inventory of such material in Form-4 and apply to the Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act in Form-5.
9. Samples to be drawn in the presence of Magistrate. - After application to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made, the Investigating Officer shall ensure that samples of the seized material are drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the same is certified by the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the said-sub- section.
10. ........
11. ........
12. ........
13. Despatch of sample for testing. -
(1) The samples after being certified by the Magistrate shall be sent directly to any one of the jurisdictional laboratories of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Central Forensic Science Laboratory or State Forensic Science Laboratory, as the case may be, for chemical analysis without any delay.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] (2) The samples of seized drugs or substances shall be despatched to the jurisdictional laboratories under the cover of the Test Memo, which shall be prepared in triplicate, in Form-6.
(3) The original and duplicate of the Test Memo shall be sent to the jurisdictional laboratory alongwith the samples and the triplicate shall be retained in the case file of the seizing officer.
A combined reading of Rules 3, 8, 9 & 13 of the Rules of 2022 manifesting that after seizure of the contraband, the officer has to move an application to the Magistrate and whereafter, the samples are supposed to be taken in his presence and whereafter the verified samples are supposed to be sent to the Forensic Laboratory for the purpose of detection of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance in the seized article. Ostensibly, no such task has been undertaken in this case and thus, it would be a serious question of law as to whether the FSL report of the samples taken from the spot can be treated as a decisive piece of evidence to substantiate the charge so as to punish him under the NDPS Act.
6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the samples which were sent to the FSL were not sent after getting verification from the Magistrate as envisaged under the Rules of 2022 aforesaid which is direct contravention of the Rules of 2022.
7. In a recent judgment titled as Mohammed Khalid and another Vs. The State of Telangana passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(S). 1610 Of 2023 dated 01.03.2024, it was held that since no proceedings were (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] undertaken for preparing of inventory and drawings of samples as per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, thus, the FSL was considered to be waste and was not considered worthy of being read in evidence on the basis of this inter alia other aspects, Hon'ble the Apex Court acquitted the appellants of all charges. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is reproduced as under:-
"22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence."
8. In the present matter, the purported contraband was seized on 23.08.2023; however, there has been a manifest failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Specifically, no samples drawn in the presence of a Magistrate were forwarded for scientific analysis, thereby constituting a glaring non-compliance with the statutory requirements. This procedural lapse significantly undermines the validity of the seizure and the subsequent evidentiary foundation of the prosecution's case.
9. Another crucial facet warranting consideration in the context of the bail application pertains to the fundamental principles governing the duration of pre-trial detention. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution should be accorded only a reasonable timeframe within which to substantiate the charges, and the continued incarceration of an accused beyond such a period is neither justifiable nor conducive to the interests of (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] justice. The cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence mandates that an accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
9.1. In the context of a Sessions trial, the proceedings ideally ought to commence and conclude within one year. While this timeframe may be reasonably extended in exceptional circumstances, it cannot be employed as a pretext to detain an accused indefinitely merely to afford the prosecution additional time to establish its case. The constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is sacrosanct, and its violation, as evidenced by the prosecution's dilatory conduct in failing to produce witnesses within a reasonable period, constitutes a grave infringement of the accused's rights.
9.2. When there exist cogent grounds to presume that procedural infirmities or legal defects may prove fatal to the prosecution's case, withholding the grant of bail would amount to a denial of the constitutional safeguard protecting an individual's personal liberty. Therefore, in the interest of upholding the constitutional mandate and ensuring the fair administration of justice, the accused ought to be afforded the benefit of bail.
10. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023, Hon'ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.
11. At the stage of hearing of a bail plea pending trial, although tis Court is not supposed to make any definite opinion or observation with regard to the discrepancy and legal defect appearing in the case of prosecution as the same may put a serious dent on the State's case yet at the same time, this Court can not shut its eye towards the non-compliance of the mandatory provision, more than two years of incarceration pending trial, failure of compliance with the procedure of sampling and seizure and the serious issue of competence of seizure officer. Thus, looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
12. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
13. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two (Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:39830] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025] sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J 21-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM) (Downloaded on 09/09/2025 at 09:07:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)