Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Rajput vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:48075) on 10 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:48075]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10579/2025
Vijay Rajput S/o Vikram, Aged About 22 Years, Surkheda Post
Sakhwali Ps Sitamau Tehsil Sitamau District Mandsaur Madhya
Pradesh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/11/2025
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 Doodhawakhara
3. District Churu
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8 and 18
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 25 and 29 of
NDPS Act
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel
submits that petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents of
the NDPS act and there is no reliable material available on record
to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48075] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10579/2025]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
order-sheets of the learned trial Court out of 15 witnesses only 6
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. He further
submits that the delay in not at all attributable to the present
petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that
no case of alleged offence is made out against the petitioner and
he is in custody since 25.07.2022 (3 years, 3 months and 16 days
as on today) and looking to the pace at which trial is being
conducted 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48075] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10579/2025]
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."
6. 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
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.
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48075] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10579/2025]
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-
sheet has already been filed and the petitioner is currently facing
trial, therefore, on these grounds, he implore the court to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the contraband recovered is higher
than the commercial quantity and looking to the nature of
allegation and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not
deserve indulgence of bail. However, he is not in a position to
dispute the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2022
(3 years, 3 months and 16 days as on today) and till date only 6
witnesses have been examined.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, overall facts and
circumstances of the case; while following the verdict of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of
Odisha and the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration
for 3 years, 3 months and 16 days as on today and out of total 15
cited witnesses only 6 witnesses have been examined till date and
trial of the case will take significant time to complete, thus,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court
deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
10. 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 the above
mentioned FIR, 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
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48075] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10579/2025]
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.
11. 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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
64-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 10/11/2025 at 05:15:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
