[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Karan Singh Panwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52832) on 6 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:52832]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9211/2025

Karan Singh Panwar S/o Sh. Kamal Singh Panwar, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Modi, Police Station Jawad, District Neemuch (Madhya
Pradesh).
(At Present Logged In District Jail, Churu)
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                      ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Kailash Khilery
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/12/2025 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              Ratannagar
   3.     District                    Churu

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act

5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 25 & 29 of NDPS Act

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. It

is submitted that the present petitioner and co-accused Mahesh

Kumar have been apprehended while carrying illegal contraband in a

(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:36:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52832] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9211/2025]

Tempo bearing registration No.RJ-20GC-1785. The present petitioner

was the driver of the said Tempo while the co-accused Mahesh

Kumar was sitting beside him. On search being made illegal narcotic

contraband (Poppy Husk weighing 270 kg) were recovered from the

aforesaid Tempo. It is submitted that co-accused Mahesh Kumar has

already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 09.05.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 3 rd Bail

Application Nos.4470/2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner

has no criminal antecedent. It is also submitted that out of total 17

prosecution witnesses, statements of only 3 witnesses have been

recorded during the trial and the pace of the trial is very slow. It is

further submitted that the challan has already been filed and the

petitioner has been in custody since 12.01.2023 i.e. more than 2

years 10 months 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

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.)

(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:36:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52832] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9211/2025]

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 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.

(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:36:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52832] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9211/2025]

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, he does not refute the fact that other co-accused

Mahesh Kumar, whose case is on similar footing, has already been

enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. He also

admits that fact that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses,

statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded till date.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case as well as perused the material

available on record and taking into consideration that co-accused

Mahesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate

Bench of this Court; out of total 17 prosecution witnesses, only 03

have been examined so far; petitioner has no previous criminal

antecedent; the challan has already been filed; the petitioner has

remained in custody since 12.01.2023 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

(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 05:36:46 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:52832] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9211/2025]

court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon

to do so till completion of the trial.