[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saddam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53858) on 15 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53858]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11277/2025
Saddam S/o Lal Mohammad, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of
Budha Police Station Narayangarh District Mandsaur Mp (Lodged
In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan,
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VK Gaur.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
15/12/2025
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 Chhotisadari
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 contends that the allegations
levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He further
submits that, as per the prosecution story, contraband poppy husk
(weighing 160.740 kilograms), which is stated to be above the
commercial quantity was recovered from an abandoned Truck, and in
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:36:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53858] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11277/2025]
the Course of further investigation the present petitioner was
apprehended.
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 26.03.2024, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 01.08.2024,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately four months
and six days.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has only one previous antecedent, in which the
petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2025 passed in S.B.
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15006/2024.
It is submitted that the co-accused Sanjay has already been
enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
14.08.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No. 1512/2025.
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 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.
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:36:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53858] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11277/2025]
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.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioner has been in custody since 09.11.2024, i.e. for
about 1 year and 1 month. The trial of the case is likely to take a
sufficiently long time to conclude; therefore, further incarceration
of the petitioner is not warranted, and the benefit of bail deserves
to be granted.
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 is not in a position to refute the fact that FSL samples
were sent after an inordinate delay of four months and six days
days and the petitioner is in custody since long.
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 challan has already been filed; the co-accused
person has already been enlarged on bail; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 09.11.2024 i.e. for about 1 year and 1
month; and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:36:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53858] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11277/2025]
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
123-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 15/12/2025 at 04:36:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
