[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:52836) on 6 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:52836]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10268/2025
Anil Kumar S/o Chanan Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
Sadulpur Police Station Mandi Aadampur District Hissar, Haryana.
(At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
06/12/2025
The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by 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 Hanumangarh Junction
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any -
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that first bail
application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on
03.07.2024. After rejection of first bail application, challan has
been filed in the matter. Hence, this second bail application has
been preferred by the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that allegation against
present petitioner is false and fabricated. It is further submitted
that recovery of alleged contraband was stated to be affected on
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:13:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52836] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10268/2025]
07.04.2024, whereas, samples were forwarded to the FSL for
examination only on 29.04.2024, resulting in an unaccounted
delay of approximately 23 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. He,
therefore, urges that benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the
petitioner.
Learned counsel also submits that allegedly recovered
narcotic contraband viz. Poppy Husk, exceeds commercial quantity
threshold, being 95 kgs. 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.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has 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.
Learned counsel has further 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,
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:13:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52836] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10268/2025]
wherein it was held that, prolonged incarceration, being contrary
to the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21,
warrants that conditional liberty overrides the statutory embargo
contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
Additionally, it is contended that out of a total of 16
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined by the learned
trial court till date. Moreover, challan has already been filed and
petitioner has been in custody since 07.04.2024 (about more than
one and a half years) and trial of case will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed bail application, 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; petitioner has been in custody since 07.04.2024 (about
more than one year) and trial of case will take sufficiently long
time to conclude; without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
petitioner on bail.
Consequently, second bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:13:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52836] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10268/2025]
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
26-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 06/12/2025 at 07:13:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
