[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:54248) on 16 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:54248]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13401/2025
Rahul S/o Shri Shyam Lal, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of
Dantiwara Police Station Dangiawas District Jodhpur. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay a/w Mr. Tarun
Dhaka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/12/2025
This second 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 Kherapa
3. District Jodhpur
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS
FIR Act. and Under Sections 3/25 &
25(1AA) ARMS Act. and under
Sections 317(2) and 341(2) of the
BNS.
5. Offences added, if any -
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12637/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 11:35:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54248] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13401/2025]
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the
statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first bail application,
the statement of Seizure Officer has been recorded. Hence, this
second application for bail has been filed.
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 straw
(weighing 395.170 kilograms), which is stated to be above the
commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner's Scorpio car.
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 30.08.2024, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 15.10.2024,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 46 days. It
is also submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses,
statement of only 1 witness have been recorded and the pace of the
trial is very slow.
Learned counsel argues that such an unexplained lapse
occurred on the part of the concerned Seizure Officer, as the
samples were sent to the FSL after an inordinate and unjustified
delay. 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 17/12/2025 at 11:35:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54248] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13401/2025]
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 30.08.2024, i.e. for
about 1 year, 3 months and 17 days as on today. 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 out of total
22 prosecution witnesses, statement of only 1 witness have been
recorded; the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of
about 46 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 petitioner
has remained in custody since 30.08.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 3
months and 17 days as on today; and the trial of the case will
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 11:35:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:54248] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13401/2025]
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 second 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
143-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 17/12/2025 at 11:35:11 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
