[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kaluram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53205) on 8 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53205]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13994/2025
Chhogaram S/o Kanaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Hadmatpura
Padarli, Police Station Siwana, District Balotra. (At Present
Lodged In District Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13995/2025
Kaluram S/o Baluram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Raiko Ki Dhani,
Siwana, Police Station Siwana, District Balotra (Raj). (Lodged In
Sub Jail, Pindwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tirath Raj Singh Sodha
Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
08/12/2025
Both the aforesaid bail applications arise out of same FIR,
therefore, they are decided by this common order.
These applications for second bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by petitioners who have been
arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
2. Police Station Pindwara
3. District Sirohi
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8, 15 and 29 of
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 11:38:14 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53205] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13994/2025]
The first bail application filed by the petitioners was
dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated
14.07.2025 passed in S.B. CRLMB No.5465/2025, however, liberty
was granted to the petitioners to file a fresh bail application after
filing of challan.
Now, challan has been filed. Hence, the present bail
applications.
Learned counsels further submitted that allegation against
present petitioners is false and fabricated. It is further submitted
that recovery of alleged contraband was stated to be affected on
31.03.2025, whereas, samples were forwarded to the FSL for
examination only on 20.08.2025, resulting in an unaccounted
delay of approximately 04 months and 20 days. Learned counsels
argue that such an unexplained lapse creates a reasonable
possibility of tampering with the samples, which cannot be ruled
out. He has also submitted that Clause 1.13 of Standing Order
No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988, mandates that samples drawn
ought to have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from
recovery. He, therefore, urges that benefit of doubt ought to be
extended to the petitioners.
It is additionally contended that as per averments in the FIR,
alleged recovery was effected in the morning and as per
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory to obtain
prior authorization from a competent authority for search and
seizure. These mandatory requirements, however, were not
complied with in the present case.
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 11:38:14 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53205] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13994/2025]
In support of his contentions, learned counsels for the
petitioners have placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan
[SLP (Crl.) No.5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No.5732/2025],
decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the
delay and lack of substantive evidence.
Moreover, challan has already been filed and petitioners have
been in custody since 31.03.2025 (about 07 months and 08 days)
and trial of case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, benefit
of bail may be granted to accused-petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed bail application and submits that allegedly recovered
narcotic contraband viz. Poppy Husk, exceeds commercial quantity
threshold, being 86.900 kgs. He further submitted that there is
one criminal antecedent of similar nature against the petitioner -
Kaluram, though, there are no previous criminal antecedents of
petitioner - Chhogaram. However, he does not refute the
aforestated facts.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record; considering the fact that Clause 1.13 of Standing Order
No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988, mandates that samples drawn
ought to have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from
recovery; petitioners have been in custody since 31.03.2025
(about 07 months and 08 days) and trial of case will take
sufficiently long time to conclude; without expressing any opinion
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 11:38:14 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53205] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13994/2025]
on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
petitioners on bail.
Consequently, second bail applications under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) are allowed. It is ordered that accused-
petitioners as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in
any other case, provided he/she/they furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for his/her/their appearance
before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
31-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 11:38:14 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
