Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Swarn Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12960) on 7 March, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:12960]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 499/2025

Subhash S/o Shri Lakha Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Kanasar, P.s Baap Dist Jodhpur Rural Raj (At Present
Lodged In Sub Jail Suratgarh Dist Sri Ganganagar )
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent
                              Connected With
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10842/2024
Swarn Singh @ Sonu S/o Kala Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Basti Nare Wali, Ps Guru Harsahay, Dist. Firozpur, Punjab
(Lodged In Sub Jail Suratgarh)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. S.R. Godara
                                Mr. Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

07/03/2025

1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483

BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested

in connection with F.I.R. No.22/2022, registered at Police Station

Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections

8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that co-

accused Nishan Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application

[2025:RJ-JD:12960] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-499/2025]

No. 8971/2023) from whose conscious possession contraband

(Poppy husk/straw) weighing 69 kg. was recovered has already

been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2023.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been

implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure

statements of the co-accused Nishan Singh. Lastly, learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are in

judicial custody; the petitioners do not have any criminal

antecedents; the investigation against the present petitioners has

already been completed and the trial of the case will take

sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be

granted to the accused-petitioners.

3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application. However, they were not in a position

to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already

been enlarged on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the

order dated 28.08.2023 passed by this Court. The order dated

28.08.2023 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.22/2022, registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the statements of Seizure Officer namely Pawan Kumar (P.W.-1) recorded before competent criminal court on 17.06.2003 and submitted that the Seizure Officer (P.W.-1) had recovered contraband (poppy husk / straw) from a car contained in three sacks separately but had taken sample after

[2025:RJ-JD:12960] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-499/2025]

mixing the contraband recovered from these three sacks. Learned counsel submitted that it is an admitted case that the contraband recovered was mixed and thereafter, sample was taken. Learned counsel submitted that entire action of the Seizure Officer is contrary to the Standing Order No.1/88, dated 15.03.1988 of the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi and the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Netram Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2014) 1 Cr. Law Reporter (Raj.) 163. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that since the contraband recovered is greater than the commercial quantity, the action of the Seizure Officer cannot be faulted with. Learned Public Prosecutor prayed that the present bail application filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

The relevant portion of the statements of the Seizure Officer (P.W.-1) recorded before competent criminal court on 17.06.2023 reads as under:-

"iwNrkN fjiksVZ eqfYte fu"kkuflag o lanhiflag izn"kZ ih&4 o 5 gSa ftl ij , ls ch esjs] lh ls Mh fu"kkuflag o lanhiflag ds gLrk{kj gSa b ls ,Q rFkk th ls ,p vkRekjke o vlye ds gLrk{kj gSaA MksMk iksLr dCtk esa ysdj rhuksa dVVksa dk vuqla/kku ckWDl esa ekStwn dEI;wVj dkaVk ls otu fd;k x;k rks izR;sd dVVk esa 23-00 fdxzk iksLr Hkjk gqvk Fkk ftl ij rhuksa dVVks dks uEcj 1] 2] 3 vafdr fd, o rhuksa dVVksa dks ckjh&ckjh ls vuqla/kku ckWDl esa ekStwn f=iky ij [kkyh djds izR;sd [kkyh dVVs dk otu fd;k rks og 150 xzke dk gqvk] bl izdkj dqy 22 fdyks 850 xzke izR;sd dVVs esa MksMk iksLr Fkh dqy 68 fdyks 550 xzke MksMk iksLr FkkA MksMk iksLr dks fgyk Mqykdj okfil IykfLVd ds dVVksa esa Mkydj muesa ls 250&250 xzke MksMk iksLr dk crkSj uewuk o d.Vksy lSEiy fudkydj ikjn"khZ FkSfy;ksa esa Mkydj lQsn diM+s dh FkSyh esa Mkydj lhy ekSgj fd;k rFkk mu ij dze"k uewuk lSEiy ij ekdZ&,] ch lh o d.Vksy lSEiy ij ekdZ&Mh] b] ,Q vafdr fd;k] "ks'k cps izR;sd dVVs esa 22-350 fdxzk MksMk iksLr dks mUghsa dVVksa esa jgus fn;k tkdj mUgsa IykfLVd dVVksa esa Hkjdj lhy ekSgj dj iwoZ esa yxk, uEcj vuqlkj 1] 2] 3 vafdr fd;kA fu"kkuflag dks 11-00 ,,e ij mlds vf/kdkjksa ls voxr djokdj /kkjk 52 ,uMhih,l ,DV dk uksfVl fn;k tks izn"kZ ih&6 gSa ftl ij , ls ch esjs] lh ls Mh fu"kkuflag] b ls ,Q vkRekjke] th ls ,p vlye ds gLrk{kj gSaA"

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, so also the statement of the

[2025:RJ-JD:12960] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-499/2025]

Seizure Officer (P.W.-1), in the considered opinion of this Court, prima facie the action of the Seizure Officer was not in conformity with the Standing Order No.1/88, dated 15.03.1988 of the NCB, New Delhi and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Netram (supra).

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act are duly satisfied and hence, 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 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner Nishan Singh S/o Shri Banta Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.22/2022, registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sriganganagar, 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.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the

contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of

the present petitioners and the petitioners have been implicated in

the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements

of the co-accused Nishan Singh. This Court also prima facie finds

that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case

will take sufficiently long time; no case of similar nature is pending

against the petitioners; and the prosecution has not shown any

apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material

prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice or

involving themselves in cases of similar nature, in case they are