Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narayan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33995) on 1 August, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:33995]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7481/2025

Narayan Singh S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhato
Ka Dera, Muddo Ki Dhani, Police Station Nagana, District Barmer.
(At Present Lodged In District Jail Barmer)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. N.K. Gurjar
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
                                Prosecutor



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

01/08/2025

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439

Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.163/2022 registered at Police Station

Sindhari, District - Barmer, for offences under Sections 8/15 of the

NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

As per the prosecution story, the material facts of this case

are that on 18.08.2022 at around 8.40 pm on the information

received from the HC Salaram through wireless, police party

reached at Dhanne Ki Dhani, and intercepted one vehicle - Innova

bearing registration No.GJ-01HV-9978, which had broken the

Nakabandi and was driven in rash and negligent manner. Two

[2025:RJ-JD:33995] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7481/2025]

persons were apprehended. The driver of the Innova car disclosed

his name as Chanana Ram and another person sitting beside him

disclosed his name as Narayan Singh (present petitioner). On

searching the aforesaid Innova Car, illegal narcotic contraband

Doda Post (Poppy Straw) weighing 510 kg, was recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has no

active role to play in this incident as he was neither driving the car

nor does the contraband belong to him and he was also not aware

about the fact that the vehicle was loaded with illegal narcotic

contraband, which is higher than the commercial quantity. It is

submitted that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedent

of similar nature.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the out of 26

prosecution witnesses no single witness has been examined till

date. He further submits that the delay in not at all attributable to

the present petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the accused-

petitioner that no case of alleged offence is made out against the

petitioner and he is in judicial custody since 19.08.2022 (2 year,

11 months, and 13 day as on today) and looking to the pace at

which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the

same is not likely to be conducted in the near future. While it's

true that, there is a fetter under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

regarding grant of bail to an accused having illegal possession of

commercial quantity of contraband but a fundamental right of

speedy trial to him cannot be permitted to be flouted.

[2025:RJ-JD:33995] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7481/2025]

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa

(Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd

Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.

Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment

of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been

observed as under:

"9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co- accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024], decided on

22.05.2025, wherein, while allowing the bail application, it was

observed as under:

"7. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:33995] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7481/2025]

Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

9. 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-

sheet has already been filed and the petitioner is currently facing

trial, therefore, on these grounds, he implore the court to enlarge

the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submitted that the contraband recovered is higher

than the commercial quantity and looking to the nature of

allegation and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not

deserve indulgence of bail. However, he is not in a position to

dispute the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2022

(2 year, 11 months, and 13 day as on today) and till date no

single witness has been examined.

Having considered the rival submissions, overall facts and

circumstances of the case; while following the verdict of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of

[2025:RJ-JD:33995] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7481/2025]

Odisha and the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration

for more than 2 years 11 months and out of total 26 cited

witnesses, no single witness has been examined till date, thus,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court

deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner

Narayan Singh S/o Purkha Ram, arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.163/2022 registered at Police Station Sindhari, District -

Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case,

provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial

court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date

of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the

trial.

In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of

hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking

unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of

concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The

prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move

an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the

petitioner today by this Court.