Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bohad Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23470) on 15 May, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:23470]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7033/2023
Bohad Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Lakha Singh Vala Police Thana Mamdot District Firozpur Punjab.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Suratgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
15/05/2025
1. The instant misc. application for bail has been filed under
Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in
connection with FIR No.198/2021 registered at Police Station
Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable
under Sections 8/22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-
accused Manpreet Singh has been enlarged on bail by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.04.2025
passed in SBCRLMB No.13761/2024. He submits that case of the
petitioner is not distinguishable with the case of the co-accused-
Manpreet Singh, as both of them were travelling in the same car
bearing Registration No.HR-26-BR-0341 in which, after the search
being made, the police team recovered psychotropic substance
(total 117000 Radol-100 Tramadol) weighing 39.312 Kgs. He
submits that the petitioner and the co-accused were thereafter,
[2025:RJ-JD:23470] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7033/2023]
arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the Coordinate Bench while taking into consideration the custody
period undergone by the co-accused-Manpreet Singh i.e. for more
than 3 years 6 months and also taking into consideration the fact
that out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses only one
prosecution witness has been examined before the competent
criminal court, enlarged the co-accused Manpreet Singh on bail.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon the judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rabi Prakash v. State of
Orissa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023) and
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State [(NCT of Delhi) (Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023].
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, implores the Court
to enlarge the present petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application, however, is not in a position to refute the fact that the
similarly situated co-accused-Manpreet Singh has been enlarged
on bail and the fact that the petitioner has undergone
incarceration of more than 3 years 6 months coupled with the fact
that out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses only one
prosecution witness has been examined till date.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced at Bar by the
learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the
case and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered the
custody period of more than 3 years 6 months and out of total 28
[2025:RJ-JD:23470] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7033/2023]
cited prosecution witnesses only one prosecution witness has been
examined till date and without expressing any opinion on the
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the
present petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the accused-petitioner Bohad Singh S/o Mahendra Singh,
arrested in relation to the FIR No.198/2021 registered at Police
Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on
bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear
before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
9. 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.
10. It is, however, made clear that findings
recorded/observations made above, are for limited purposes of
adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get
prejudiced by the same.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
2-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
