Wednesday, 13, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Baldeo Singh Alias Debu vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:18267)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11280 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 11280 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Baldeo Singh Alias Debu vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:18267) on 9 April, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:18267]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4078/2025

Baldeo Singh @ Debu S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Kaliwala District Firozpur, Punjab (Lodged In Central
Jail, Bathinda)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
Union Of India, Through Special Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D.S. Thind
                                Ms. Sonika
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. M.R. Pareek, Spl. PP for NCB



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

09/04/2025 The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 483 B.N.S.S. (Old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the

petitioner who is in judicial custody in connection with Case

No.VIII(10)08/NCB/JZU/2021 registered at Police Station NCB,

District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C),

21 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

The first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide

order dated 10.09.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the similar

situated co-accused persons viz., Harmesh Singh, Roopa, Jasveer

Singh @ Momi @ Boss, Sunil Singh, Rajvinder Singh & Sukhpreet

Singh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the

case of present petitioner is not distinguishable. The petitioner is

behind the bars for more than three years and trial of the case is

[2025:RJ-JD:18267] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4078/2025]

yet pending. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed

reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Hon'ble

the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The State of

Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023), wherein

Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:-

"3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)

(ii) of the NDPS Act."

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.

K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the

cases where fetters are placed on Court's power to grant bail and

the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time,

observed as under:

"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part - III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy

[2025:RJ-JD:18267] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4078/2025]

against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt

down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas

vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application

No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as

follows:

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.

[2025:RJ-JD:18267] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4078/2025]

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance

on the decision dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023,

wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay in

trial can also be considered for releasing accused person on bail

despite the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain's case (supra), the petitioner is

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

The petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.08.2021 and the

trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Further, counsel

submits that out of the total 9 cited prosecution witnesses, not

even a single prosecution witness has been examined till date.

With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed

that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of

bail.

[2025:RJ-JD:18267] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4078/2025]

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

gone through the material available on record.

It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far

suffered incarceration of more than 3 years and trial is still going

on. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the

embargo put on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act is not

total. In the provision, certain exceptions exist within Section 37

itself and for those exceptions, bail can be granted. In the present

case, the petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of more than

3 years, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the

petitioner it would not be appropriate to invoke the rigor

envisaged under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Section

483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the accused

petitioner - Baldeo Singh @ Debu S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh shall be

released on bail in connection with Case

No.VIII(10)08/NCB/JZU/2021 registered at Police Station NCB,

District Jodhpur for provided he executes a personal bond in a

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to

the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before

that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called

upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 54-GKaviya/-

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