Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pappu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:21144) on 2 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:21144]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 5th Bail Application No. 4486/2025

Pappu Singh S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
Pavna Police Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh (At Present
Lodged In District Jail Pali)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Kailash Khilery.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP.



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

02/05/2025

1. This Court perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.196/2009 of Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali for the

offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 29 of NDPS Act and

Section 3/25 of Arms Act. He has preferred this fifth bail

application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023 (439 Cr.P.C.).

3. Mr. Kailash Khilery, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits that six witnesses remain to be examined in

the proceedings.

3.1 Learned counsel avers that the difference between the fourth

bail application and the present bail application is that the fourth

bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. 4 th Bail Application No.

10406/2023 was dismissed by this Court on 23.08.2023, at which

[2025:RJ-JD:21144] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-4486/2025]

juncture, the petitioner had undergone custody of only about

three years, having been arrested on 15.12.2019. The order dated

23.08.2023 is reproduced hereunder:

"1. This criminal misc. fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody, in connection with FIR No.196/2009 registered at Police Station Marwar Junction, District Pali for the offence under Sections 8/15 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'NDPS Act') and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The bone of contention in the present case is the recovery of contraband (poppy straw) weighing 530 kgs and also recovery of a pistol alongwith bullets from a vehicle (car) bearing registration No. RJ 27 TC 0397, being driven by co-accused Jamna Lal accompanied by present petitioner-Pappu Singh; the present petitioner ran away from the spot, while the co-accused was arrested.

3. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5950/2020, was dismissed, by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2020.

3.1. The second bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14222/2020 was also dismissed, as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2020, with liberty to file fresh bail application, after recording of the statements of Investigating Officer and Seizure Officer.

3.2. The third bail application of the petitioner, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No.6786/2022 was also dismissed, as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated

24.01.2023, with a direction to the learned trial court to record the statements of the remaining witnesses.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner, and that, he was implicated in this case merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.12.2019 i.e. for last more than three years and conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time, and therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that co accused Jamna Lal @ Jamna Ram has already been granted bail, and therefore, the present petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It was further submitted that the

[2025:RJ-JD:21144] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-4486/2025]

petitioner is ready to furnish the requisite bail bonds and sureties.

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, while submitting that the contraband, as recovered in the present case, is quite more than the commercial quantity, and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly applicable in the present case.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioner remained absconding for more than ten years, and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

10. This Court observes that the petitioner was arrested for the offence under Sections 8 & 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 1959; the petitioner, on the date of incident i.e. 13.10.2009, evaded his arrest by fleeing from the spot.

11. This Court further observes that in the criminal proceedings, especially in bail matters, the Court has to individually and independently examine the facts and circumstances of each case; therefore, the question whether the accused concerned deserves bail or not, can be determined only after making due examination on case to case basis. In the present case, the petitioner was involved in a heinous offence and the contraband in question is much beyond the commercial quantity, and such a crime, as involved herein, has an adverse affect on the society at large, more particularly, the young generations.

12. This Court also observes that the present petitioner remained absconding for a long period of ten years; it was only on 15.12.2019, that he was taken into custody. This Court further observes that the grant of bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right, more particularly, when the nature of offence involved is heinous and the accused concerned remained absconding for a long period of time; therefore, the present petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

13. Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the contraband in question being much beyond the commercial quantity, as also looking into the stage of the case against the present petitioner before the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage.

[2025:RJ-JD:21144] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-4486/2025]

14. Consequently, the present fourth bail application is dismissed."

3.2 Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has now

endured incarceration for a period exceeding five years.

3.3 Learned counsel further submits that ordinarily this Court

considers bail application during trial, if the custody goes above

five years and if the trial is likely to be more prolonged.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the bail

application, but is unable to controvert the fact that six witnesses

remain to be examined and the petitioner has been in custody

since 15.12.2019.

5. At the outset, this Court considers it just and proper to

reproduce the relevant portions of the judgment rendered in Rabi

Prakash vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal

(Crl.) No.4169/2023) rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court on

13.07.2023; Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in

(2021) 3 SCC 713 and; Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan

(S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022),

decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court on

17.03.2023, as hereunder:-

Rabi Prakash (supra):

"3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent

- State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years

[2025:RJ-JD:21144] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-4486/2025]

in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)

(ii) of the NDPS Act."

Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (supra):-

"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part - III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigors of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial."

Umesh Vyas (supra):-

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody

[2025:RJ-JD:21144] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-4486/2025]

from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial."

6. In this case, this Court is relying upon the afore-quoted

judgments solely while taking into consideration the aspect

pertaining to the custody of more than five years.

7. This Court, on a conjoint consideration of the factual matrix,

which includes the stage of trial, and in particular, the prolonged

period of incarceration endured by the petitioner, this Court is of

the opinion that at this stage, the custody of the petitioner in this

case is not warranted.

8. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the

proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and