[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Prem Shankar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53448) on 9 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53448]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14993/2025
Prem Shankar S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Kuni PS
Hathunia Dist Pratapgarh Raj.
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s)          :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, 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              Rathanjana
   3.     District                    Pratapgarh

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.

The present petitioner was stated to be driver of the Pick Up, from

which recovery of illegal narcotic contraband (Poppy Husk

weighing 350 kg) is stated to have been recovered. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:19:21 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53448] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14993/2025]

It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband

was stated to be affected on 25.02.2024, whereas, samples were

forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 15.05.2024,

resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 2 months and

20 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 17 prosecution

witnesses, not a single witness has been examined before the trial

Court and the pace of the trial is very slow.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment rendered in Rambabu Vs. 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.

It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed

and the petitioner has been in custody since 25.02.2024 i.e. about

1 year, 9 month & 14 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.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

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

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:19:21 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53448] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14993/2025]

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 coordinate 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 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

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:19:21 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53448] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14993/2025]

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.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that the contraband

recovered in this matter is above the commercial quantity and the

crime committed in the present case is against the society.

However, she does not dispute the fact that petitioner has no

criminal antecedent; FSL samples were sent after an inordinate

delay of 2 months and 20 days; and out of total 17 prosecution

witnesses, statement of not a single witness has been recorded till

date.

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 17 prosecution witnesses,

not a single witness been examined so far; the challan has already

been filed; the petitioner has remained in custody since

25.02.2024 i.e. about 1 year, 9 month & 14 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.

(Uploaded on 10/12/2025 at 11:19:21 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53448] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14993/2025]

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.