Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amzad vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:44761) on 13 October, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:44761]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 12480/2025
Amzad S/o Jarin Khan, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jhanda Gali,
nearby Jumma Maszid, Swarupganj, Police Station Swarupganj,
District Sirohi, Rajasthan (Lodged In District Jail, Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
13/10/2025
The present fourth bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.201/2022 Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore for
the offences punishable under Sections 8/22, 25 & 29 of the NDPS
Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has falsely been implicated in the present case and there is no
other criminal antecedent registered against the petitioner except
the present one. It is further submitted that the petitioner is inside
jail for three years and up to this time, out of total 26 witnesses
only seven witnesses have been examined before the trial court
and the trial is yet pending. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel placed reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash
vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:42:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44761] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12480/2025]
No.4169/2023), wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as
under:-
"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 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."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the
cases where fetters are placed on Court's power to grant bail and
the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time,
observed as under:
"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 th rigours 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
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:42:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44761] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12480/2025]
being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or
for wholesale breach of constitutional right to
speedy trial."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas
vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application
No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as
follows:
"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 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
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:42:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44761] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12480/2025]
appearance before that court on each and every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till the completion of the trial."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance
on the decision dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023,
wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay in
trial can also be considered for releasing accused person on bail
despite the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain's case (supra), the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The petitioner is in the judicial custody since 25.10.2022 i.e
three years and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long
time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the fourth bail
application.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
gone through the material available on record.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far
suffered incarceration of three years and trial is still going on. So
far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the embargo put
on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act is not total. In the
provision, certain exceptions exist within Section 37 itself and for
those exceptions, bail can be granted. In the present case, the
petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of three years,
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:42:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:44761] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12480/2025]
therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the petitioner it
would not be appropriate to invoke the rigor envisaged under
Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the fourth bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner -
Amzad S/o Jarin Khan, shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No.
201/2022 Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
154-GKaviya/-
(Uploaded on 13/10/2025 at 04:42:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
