Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balvinder Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50584) on 24 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:50584]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6158/2023
Balvinder Singh S/o Avtar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, 26 Ff,
Gajsinghpur, Teh. Padampur, Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (At Present
Lodged In Central Jail Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
24/11/2025
1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 of Cr.P.C.) has been preferred 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 Goluwala
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8, 22 and 25 of
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He
has submitted that alleged recovery of narcotic contraband was
effected from four individuals viz. Saminder Singh, Sandeep Kumar,
Ashok Kumar and the present petitioner, Balvinder Singh. However,
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 05:18:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50584] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6158/2023]
two of the co-accused, namely Saminder Singh and Ashok Kumar,
have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide orders dated 18.09.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second
Bail Application No. 5689/2025 and 25.09.2025 passed in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7757/2025, respectively. He has
also submitted that out of a total of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 4
have been examined so far and that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents.
Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has been in custody for approximately three
years. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial of the
case will take sufficient long time, therefore, benefit of bail may be
granted to the petitioner.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of 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.
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 05:18:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50584] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6158/2023]
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 coordinate 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.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application, however, he does not refute the fact
that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents so also
the fact that two other co-accused have already been enlarged on
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 05:18:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50584] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6158/2023]
bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the
present petitioner is not distinguishable from co-accused, who
have been enlarged on bail.
4. Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record and taking into consideration that two other
co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Court; out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 04
have been examined so far; there are no previous criminal
antecedents against the petitioner; the petitioner has remained in
custody for approximately three years and the trial of the case will
take sufficient long time to conclude; without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that 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 and provided he/she/they furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for his/her/their appearance
before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
1-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 05:18:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
