Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5592 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5592 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 4 August, 2023
Bench: Rajendra Prakash Soni

[2023:RJ-JD:24914]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

....

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 8898/2023

Sunil son of Harlal Vishnoi, aged about 25 years, Resident of

Jajiwal Dhora, Police Station Banar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur

(Raj.)

(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh.

Mr. Navneet Poonia.

For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP.



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

                                     Order

04/08/2023

1. The prayer made in this bail petition filed under Section 439

of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") is for

grant of bail in connection with crime registered pursuant to First

Information Report Number 75/2022 of Police Station Bassi,

District Chittorgarh in respect of offence(s) punishable under

Section(s) 8 / 1 5 , 8 / 1 8 a n d 8 / 2 9 of the NDPS Act.

2. Before I proceed to examine the rival contentions in

connection with the questions of bail, it would be appropriate to

briefly state the facts of the present case which are that on

02.05.2022, at about 01:15 PM, a cote of a person named

Shriram Sutar, located in Baldarkhan village was raided. Apart

[2023:RJ-JD:24914] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8898/2023]

from other, vehicle of petitioner Sunil was also found standing with

their vehicles. After due formalities, petitioner Sunil was

apprehended by the police with 394.400 Kgs. of poppy straw,

which he had in a car controlled by him. After investigation, the

petitioner has been charge-sheeted in the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

campus which was raided, belonged to a person named Shriram

Suthar and admittedly many vehicles of other persons were

parked there. There has been non-compliance of the Standing

Instruction No. 1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau in

failure in sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory (for

short 'the FSL') within seventy two hours of the seizure. Relying

upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Noor Aga

Vs. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417, he

submitted that non-compliance of the Standing Order entitles him

for bail. He, therefore, prayed for release of the petitioner on bail.

4. Opposing the prayer, Shri B.R. Bishnoi, learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has been found in

possession of the contraband of commercial quantity and in view

of prima-facie evidence against him available in the charge-sheet

showing his involvement in the offence, he is not entitled for the

benefit of bail in view of provisions of Section 37 of the Act of

1985. With regard to delay in sending the samples to FSL beyond

the period of seventy two hours, he submitted that the

instructions contained in the Standing Order have directory effect

only. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 37 of the

Act of 1985 starts with a non-obstante clause and hence, without

[2023:RJ-JD:24914] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8898/2023]

satisfaction of the conditions laid down therein, petitioner is not

entitled for the benefit of bail.

5. As per record of the charge-sheet, the recovery of the

contraband was made on 02.05.2022. The date of forwarding the

sample is mentioned in the forwarding letter of the Police Station

as 24.06.2022. Those samples have been forwarded from S.P.

Office to FSL on 23.05.2022. The packets of sample were received

in the laboratory only on 24.05.2022 i.e. beyond 72 hours of the

alleged recovery. In the forwarding letter of the police station,

both the date and the month are prima facie misleading and

wrong. Be that as it may, the samples have been received in the

FSL after 72 hours of the seizure. Learned counsel for the State

has not in a position to controvert the above mentioned date of

recovery of contraband and date of receipt issued by the FSL.

6. After completion of investigation the charge sheet has

already been filed. Trial is likely to consume time and no useful

purpose would be served by keeping him in detention for an

indefinite period. The petitioner is not involved in any other case

under the NDPS Act. Co-accused Rajunath S/o Kananath (Bail No.

822/2023, allowed on 28.03.2023), Kailash S/o Bhagwati Lal @

Bhagu Meena (Bail No. 3665/2023, allowed on 16.05.2023) and

Chetan S/o Babu Lal Bishnoi (Bail No. 7634/2023, allowed on

03.07.2023) have already been enlarged on bail.

7. The point raised regarding delay in sending the sample to

FSL and its consequences is a matter of trial. However, in the

present case sufficient mitigating circumstances are made out to

extend the concession of bail to the petitioner in view of decision

[2023:RJ-JD:24914] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8898/2023]

of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Hansraj @ Hansu reported in

2019 (1) CJ (Cri.) 93.

8. Keeping in view the above facts and without commenting

upon the merits of the case, I deem this to be a fit case for grant

of regular bail to the petitioner.

9. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered

that the accused-petitioner Sunil S/o Harlal Vishnoi in F.I.R. No.

75/2022, Police Station Bassi, District Chittorgarh shall be

released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond and two

surety bonds of the amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial

court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates

of hearing and as and when called upon to do so and if not

required by Jail Authorities in any other case. This order is subject

to the condition that accused, within 7 days of his release and

sureties, on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of

their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of

an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well

as front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty

amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under

Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J 9-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter