Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27419) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27419]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2876/2025
Mohanlal S/o Devaram Ji, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Neharo Ka
Bera Ankhiya Nokhda, P.s. Rgt, Dist Barmer (Raj.) (Presently
Lodged In Dist Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangi Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at
the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the
matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Pindwara
3. District Sirohi
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15, 25
and 29 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 11.02.2025
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the
petitioner is a 25 years old boy and no case for the alleged
offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not
warranted. He has no criminal antecedents. About 66 kg
[2025:RJ-JD:27419] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2876/2025]
poppy straw came to be recovered from him as per the story
of the prosecution. He was arrested on 16.10.2024 but till
now, the trial has not been commenced. A number of
prosecution witnesses have been projected in the charge-
sheet submitted by the police and presumably the same
would take a considerable time to reach at a legitimate
conclusion. There are no factors at play in the case at hand
that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner
and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and
surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
material available on record.
5. The submission with regard to non compliance of mandatory
provisions and flouting of the Rules 3, 8, 9 and 13 of the
NDPS Rules, 2022, cannot be ignored but this Court is
desisting itself from making any comment on it, as doing so
may influence the course of trial.
6. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:27419] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2876/2025]
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.
7. Considering the age and the grounds available with the
petitioner, looking to the period of incarceration and taking
guidance from the judgment passed in Rabi Prakash (supra),
it is deemed appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the
petitioner in the present matter.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be
enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
35-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
