Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajesh Vishnoi Alias Raju Foji vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:47495) on 4 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:47495]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13042/2025

Rajesh Vishnoi @ Raju Foji S/o Shri Karnaram Vishnoi, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Doli, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Barmer. Second
Address 12/103, 104 K.K. Colony, Basni First Phase, District
Jodhpur. Third Address Gali No. 4, Ghasi Colony, Bhagat Ki Kothi,
District Jodhpur.
(Presently Lodged At High Security Jail, Ajmer)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Prakash Raika
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 04/11/2025

1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 of 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              Rayla
   3.        District                    Bhilwara

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 332, 353, 307, 302, 34 & 427 of IPC and Section 8/15 NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act

5. Offences added, if any Section 147, 148, 149, 411, 467, 468 471, 474 & 120-B of IPC.

Section 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act Section 35, 25(6), 28 & 5/27 of Arms Act

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:49:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47495] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13042/2025]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has no role to play in this incident and after thorough

investigation, Investigating Agency has filed the challan. The

allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated. The

other co-accused persons namely Pushpendra Singh, Prakash and

Bhuttaram Bishnoi have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.05.2023,

20.05.2024 and 07.03.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application Nos.2249/2023, 12476/2023 and 450/2025

respectively and Sunil Dudi has also been enlarged on bail vide

order dated 18.08.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail

Application No.9266/2023. He further submits that co-accused

Ramesh has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order

dated 30.07.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No.8741/2025. He further submits that out of 92 witnesses, no

single prosecution witnesses have been examined by the

competent criminal Court till today, therefore, looking to the pace

at which trial is being concluded against the present petitioner, the

same is not likely to be conducted in the near future. While it's

true that, there is a fetter under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

regarding grant of bail to an accused having illegal possession of

commercial quantity of contraband but a fundamental right of

speedy trial to him cannot be permitted to be flouted. Learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody

since 26.12.2021 (3 years 11 months) and charge-sheet has

already been filed and the petitioner is currently facing trial,

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:49:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47495] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13042/2025]

therefore, on these grounds, he implore the court to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa

(Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd

Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.

Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment

of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been

observed as under:

"9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co- accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024], decided on

22.05.2025, wherein, while allowing the bail application, it was

observed as under:

"7. 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

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:49:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47495] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13042/2025]

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 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.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

9. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submits that the petitioner alongwith other co-

accused were involved in this offence and they were arrested from

the place of incident. However, he is not in a position to refute the

fact that no prosecution witnesses have been examined by the

competent criminal Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case; after perusal of the record; more

specifically period of custody, status of the trial and that the co-

accused Pushpendra Singh, Sunil Dudi, Prakash, Bhuttaram

Bishnoi and Ramesh have already been enlarged on bail and that

the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, without

(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:49:35 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:47495] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13042/2025]

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 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 F.I.R.

No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara,

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.