Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Leeladhar @ Anil vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39830) on 8 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:39830]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10041/2025
Leeladhar @ Anil S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Ward No.9, Morjand Khari Police Station Sadulshahar District
Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Sri
Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/09/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Sadar Ganganagar
3. District Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/22 of the NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 08.08.2025
order
2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that
On 23.08.2023, at around 5:40 PM, Sub-Inspector Sunil Kumar,
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
SHO of Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, intercepted a grey
Swift Dzire (DL9CAK 4582) parked on National Highway 62. The
occupant, Liladhar alias Anil, attempted to flee but was
apprehended. A search revealed five boxes containing 2500
Tramadol tablets (total weight 1125 grams), possession of which
requires a license under the NDPS Act, which the accused did not
have. The petitioner stated that he bought the tablets from
Gurmel Singh, and his statement was recorded under Section 67
NDPS Act. He was arrested, and the seized tablets were properly
sampled and documented. Investigation revealed the tablets were
sourced from another accused, Beant Singh. A charge sheet was
filed against the applicant under Sections 8, 22, and 25 of the
NDPS Act, and charges were framed under Sections 8, 22, and 29.
of the NDPS Act. His first bail application being SBCRLMB
No.15890/2024 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide
order dated 27.01.2025. Hence the instant bail application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5.1. The prosecution case unfolds that on 23.08.2023, police
officials from Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, led by the
SHO, intercepted a grey Swift Dzire bearing registration number
DL9CAK 4582, which was found parked along National Highway
62. The vehicle's occupant, identified as Liladhar alias Anil,
attempted to abscond upon sighting the police but was promptly
apprehended. Subsequent search of the vehicle resulted in the
seizure of five boxes containing a total of 2,500 Tramadol tablets,
amounting to 1,125 grams in weight. It is pertinent to note that
possession of such quantity necessitates a valid license under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, which
the accused failed to produce. Upon interrogation, the petitioner
admitted to having procured the tablets from one Gurmel Singh,
and his statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS
Act.
5.2. This Court feels weight in the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has disregarded the
procedural safeguards enshrined under Rules 3, 8, 9, and 13 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Search,
Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules of 2022'), which compounds the legal infirmity so also
ignored the guidelines issued by the Govt. Of India in this regard.
5.3. Post-search and seizure, the contraband items purportedly
recovered at the spot were marked and forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis. However, no inventory was
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
duly prepared or verified in the presence of the competent
Magistrate as mandated by Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
Moreover, the samples that were allegedly verified in the
Magistrate's presence were inexplicably not forwarded for scientific
examination to the FSL.
5.4. This egregious deviation from the prescribed procedure
contravenes the Standing Orders Nos. 1/1988 and 1/1989 issued
by the Government, as well as the statutory requirements under
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. This procedural lapse is a grave
irregularity, as any conviction predicated on such defective seizure
and sampling would be unsustainable, given that the FSL report,
based on improperly taken samples, would lack evidentiary
credibility.
5.5. It is pertinent to highlight that, pursuant to the powers vested
under Section 52-A read with Section 76 of the NDPS Act, the
Central Government, through the Department of Finance,
promulgated a Gazette Notification dated 23.12.2022. This
notification introduced the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Seizure, Search, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules,
2022, which came into immediate effect. These Rules of 2022
comprehensively delineate the procedural framework for
classification, seizure, sealing, storage, sampling, and disposal of
contraband substances under the NDPS Act.
5.6. For ease of reference, it is essential to reproduce and
examine the pertinent provisions of the Rules of 2022, which
embody the statutory requirements designed to safeguard the
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of the seizure and
investigative processes, which are as under-
3. Classification of seized material. -
(1) The narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and
controlled substances seized under the Act shall be
classified based on physical properties and results of
the drug detection kit, if any, and shall be weighed
separately.
(2) If the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and
controlled substances are found in packages or
containers, such packages and containers shall be
weighed separately and serially numbered for the
purpose of identification.
(3) All narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and
controlled substances found in loose form shall be
packed in tamper proof bag or in container, which shall
be serially numbered and weighed and the particular of
drugs and the date of seizure shall also be mentioned
on such bag or container:
Provided that bulk quantities of ganja, poppy straw
may be packed in gunny bags and sealed in such way
that it cannot be tempered with:
Provided further that seized concealing material such
as trolley bags, backpack and other seized articles shall
be sealed separately.
(4) The classification, weighing, packaging and
numbering referred to in this sub-rule shall be done in
the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the
person from whose possession the drugs and
substances was recovered and a mention to this effect
shall invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on
the spot of seizure.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
(5) The detailed inventory of the packages, containers,
conveyances and other seized articles shall be prepared
and attached to the panchnama.
6. .........
7. ........
8. Application to Magistrate. - After the seized
material under the Act is forwarded to the officer-in-
charge of the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered under section 53 of the Act or if it is seized
by such an officer himself, he shall prepare an
inventory of such material in Form-4 and apply to the
Magistrate, at the earliest, under sub-section (2) of
section 52A of the Act in Form-5.
9. Samples to be drawn in the presence of
Magistrate. - After application to the Magistrate under
sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made, the
Investigating Officer shall ensure that samples of the
seized material are drawn in the presence of the
Magistrate and the same is certified by the magistrate
in accordance with the provisions of the said-sub-
section.
10. ........
11. ........
12. ........
13. Despatch of sample for testing. -
(1) The samples after being certified by the Magistrate
shall be sent directly to any one of the jurisdictional
laboratories of Central Revenue Control Laboratory,
Central Forensic Science Laboratory or State Forensic
Science Laboratory, as the case may be, for chemical
analysis without any delay.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
(2) The samples of seized drugs or substances shall be
despatched to the jurisdictional laboratories under the
cover of the Test Memo, which shall be prepared in
triplicate, in Form-6.
(3) The original and duplicate of the Test Memo shall
be sent to the jurisdictional laboratory alongwith the
samples and the triplicate shall be retained in the case
file of the seizing officer.
A combined reading of Rules 3, 8, 9 & 13 of the Rules of 2022
manifesting that after seizure of the contraband, the officer has to
move an application to the Magistrate and whereafter, the samples
are supposed to be taken in his presence and whereafter the
verified samples are supposed to be sent to the Forensic
Laboratory for the purpose of detection of any Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substance in the seized article. Ostensibly, no such
task has been undertaken in this case and thus, it would be a
serious question of law as to whether the FSL report of the
samples taken from the spot can be treated as a decisive piece of
evidence to substantiate the charge so as to punish him under the
NDPS Act.
6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the samples which were
sent to the FSL were not sent after getting verification from the
Magistrate as envisaged under the Rules of 2022 aforesaid which
is direct contravention of the Rules of 2022.
7. In a recent judgment titled as Mohammed Khalid and
another Vs. The State of Telangana passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(S). 1610 Of 2023 dated
01.03.2024, it was held that since no proceedings were
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
undertaken for preparing of inventory and drawings of samples as
per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, thus, the FSL was considered to be
waste and was not considered worthy of being read in evidence on
the basis of this inter alia other aspects, Hon'ble the Apex Court
acquitted the appellants of all charges. The relevant paragraph of
the above judgment is reproduced as under:-
"22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the
NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5
for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in
presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the
matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11) is nothing but a waste
paper and cannot be read in evidence."
8. In the present matter, the purported contraband was seized
on 23.08.2023; however, there has been a manifest failure to
comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the
NDPS Act. Specifically, no samples drawn in the presence of a
Magistrate were forwarded for scientific analysis, thereby
constituting a glaring non-compliance with the statutory
requirements. This procedural lapse significantly undermines the
validity of the seizure and the subsequent evidentiary foundation
of the prosecution's case.
9. Another crucial facet warranting consideration in the context
of the bail application pertains to the fundamental principles
governing the duration of pre-trial detention. This Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution should be accorded only a
reasonable timeframe within which to substantiate the charges,
and the continued incarceration of an accused beyond such a
period is neither justifiable nor conducive to the interests of
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
justice. The cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence mandates that
an accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
9.1. In the context of a Sessions trial, the proceedings ideally
ought to commence and conclude within one year. While this
timeframe may be reasonably extended in exceptional
circumstances, it cannot be employed as a pretext to detain an
accused indefinitely merely to afford the prosecution additional
time to establish its case. The constitutional guarantee of a speedy
trial is sacrosanct, and its violation, as evidenced by the
prosecution's dilatory conduct in failing to produce witnesses
within a reasonable period, constitutes a grave infringement of the
accused's rights.
9.2. When there exist cogent grounds to presume that procedural
infirmities or legal defects may prove fatal to the prosecution's
case, withholding the grant of bail would amount to a denial of the
constitutional safeguard protecting an individual's personal liberty.
Therefore, in the interest of upholding the constitutional mandate
and ensuring the fair administration of justice, the accused ought
to be afforded the benefit of bail.
10. 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
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the
right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.
11. At the stage of hearing of a bail plea pending trial, although
tis Court is not supposed to make any definite opinion or
observation with regard to the discrepancy and legal defect
appearing in the case of prosecution as the same may put a
serious dent on the State's case yet at the same time, this Court
can not shut its eye towards the non-compliance of the
mandatory provision, more than two years of incarceration
pending trial, failure of compliance with the procedure of
sampling and seizure and the serious issue of competence of
seizure officer. Thus, looking to the high probability that the trial
may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and
circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to
the petitioner in the present matter.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39830] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-10041/2025]
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
21-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:25:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
