[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53361) on 9 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53361]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9931/2025
Dinesh S/o Sonaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Goro Ki Dhani,
Doli Kalla, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
09/12/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
2. Police Station Jhanwar
3. District Jodhpur City West
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of the
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He
further submits that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner was
apprehended along with the contraband (Poppy Husk weighing
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:23:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53361] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9931/2025]
100.200 kilograms), which is stated to have been above commercial
quantity.
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 11.08.2024, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 20.09.2024,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 40 days.
Learned counsel argues 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.
It is also submitted that out of total 18 prosecution witnesses,
statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded and the pace of
the trial is very slow. It is additionally contended that as per
averments in the FIR, alleged recovery was effected in the
daytime 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. The Seizure Officer during his
statement recorded before the learned trial Court has also
admitted that these mandatory requirements were not complied
with in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered 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.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:23:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53361] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9931/2025]
It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2024 i.e. about
1 year, 3 months and 28 days and the further incarceration of the
petitioner is not warranted. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time to conclude, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to
the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has
one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act; the contraband
recovered in this matter is above the commercial quantity; and
the crime committed in the present case is against the society.
However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that the Seizure
Officer has admitted in his court statement that he has not
informed higher authorities; the FSL samples were sent after an
inordinate delay of 40 days; and o ut of total 18 prosecution
witnesses, statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded till
date.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
alleged antecedent pertains prior to the year 2024.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record; considering Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988
dated 15.03.1988, which mandates that samples drawn ought to
have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from
recovery; and the fact that out of total 18 prosecution witnesses,
only 03 have been examined so far; the challan has already been
filed; the petitioner has remained in custody since 11.08.2024 i.e.
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:23:49 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53361] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9931/2025]
about 1 year, 3 months and 28 days and the trial of the case will
take sufficient long time to conclude; without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined 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
as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with the above
mentioned FIR, 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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
384-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:23:49 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
