Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jai Babu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:46472) on 28 October, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:46472]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10766/2025
Jai Babu S/o Jagdish Chndra, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of
Village Kanjada, Police Thana Manasa District Neemuch State
Madhya Pradesh. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Bohra
Mr. Shekhar Mewara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
28/10/2025
This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
the present matters. The requisite details of the matters are
tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
2. Police Station Sadar Chittorgarh
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 8/25 of NDPS Act
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that out of a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 04
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Additionally,
(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:59:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46472] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10766/2025]
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged
recovery of narcotic contraband was made from the co-accused
Kamlesh and not from the present petitioner and the petitioner
has been implicated in the present case on the basis of statement
of the co-accused person. While it is 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 them cannot
be permitted to be flouted.
In support of this contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner have placed reliance on the judgment passed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 13483/2024, 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
(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:59:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46472] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10766/2025]
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challan
has already been filed in this matter and the petitioner has been in
custody since 26.08.2023 (more than 2 years) and the trial of the
case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail
may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
applications and submitted that the petitioner is involved in the
offence against society at large, however, he is not in a position to
refute the fact that petitioner has been in custody since long and
out of a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 04 prosecution
witnesses have been examined till date.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; the petitioner has been in custody since
26.08.2023 (more than 2 years) and the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time; without 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 of 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
(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:59:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46472] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10766/2025]
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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
87-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 28/10/2025 at 04:59:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
