Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39669) on 8 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:39669]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10508/2025
Madhulal S/o Varda Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Nahargarh,police Station Parsoli,district Chittorgarh Rajasthan
(Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Throgh Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10509/2025
Balu S/o Banshi Lal Kumawat, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Harpura
Ps Parsoli Distrist Chittorgarh (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi
Mr. Kailash Khillery
For Respondent(s) : 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 439 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Shambhupura
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS
Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS
Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 16.07.2025
order
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:28:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39669] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10508/2025]
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.01.2024,
Motiram Saran, SHO, PS Shambhupura along with his team during
nakabandi near Ghatiyawali-Chittorgarh road intercepted
unnumbered tractor and trolly which was driven by Balu along
with his companion Madhu Lal. During search, recovered four
plastic bags carrying 68.7 Kg poppy husk. After usual process,
FIR above got registered and petitioners were arrested.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are unsubstantiated
and that their continued detention is unwarranted. It is specifically
argued that the samples drawn by the SHO were not forwarded to
the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) within the mandatory period
of 72 hours, as stipulated by Standing Order No. 1/88 dated
15.03.1988, issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).
Furthermore, it is asserted that the prosecution's case rests on
mere conjecture and surmise, with no substantive factors
militating against the grant of bail. It is further submitted that the
quantity of the recovered contraband is marginally above the
demarcated statutory threshold, which if viewed in conjunction
with the procedural lapses, substantially weakens the
prosecution's case.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:28:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39669] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10508/2025]
5. Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties
and meticulously examined the record, the court observes that the
petitioners have been in custody for a protracted period of one
year and eight months. The circumstances surrounding the police
investigation engender serious doubts as to the credibility of the
recovery. A perusal of the FSL acknowledgment receipt reveals
that while the samples were collected on 12.01.2024, they were
dispatched to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Udaipur,
only on 30.01.2024, well beyond the prescribed 72-hour limit.
5.1. Such a glaring delay by the investigating officer, who also
served as the seizing authority in a case governed by the stringent
provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(NDPS) Act, is nothing short of egregious negligence. The
mandatory timelines enshrined in Standing Order No. 1/88 dated
15.03.1988, which requires prompt forwarding of samples to the
forensic laboratory, have been flagrantly disregarded. Equally
significant is the non-compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS
Act, which expressly obligates the immediate forwarding of seized
contraband samples for forensic examination, failure of which
casts a long shadow on the veracity and reliability of the
prosecution's evidence.
5.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the recent judgment of
Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of
2023), underscored the importance of adherence to procedural
safeguards in NDPS cases, emphasizing that non-compliance with
statutory mandates cannot be overlooked. While it is recognized
that failure to observe procedural formalities should not ipso facto
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:28:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39669] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10508/2025]
lead to acquittal, in the instant matter, the procedural lapse is
coupled with a lackadaisical attitude on the part of the
investigating agency, exacerbated by the protracted incarceration
of the accused pending trial.
5.3. Though the law does not expressly mandate that samples
must be taken contemporaneously with the seizure, nor does it
proscribe such practice, it is imperative that the overall
circumstances resonate with the procedural stipulations. The
fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution must not be infringed upon indefinitely, particularly
when the accused languishes in custody without trial for an
inordinate period.
5.4. In Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s). 4169/2023), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
that the entitlement to provisional liberty (bail) can override
statutory impediments under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
recognizing that liberty is a paramount fundamental right under
the Constitution.
6. Considering the entire matrix of facts, the prolonged
detention of the petitioners (exceeding one year and eight
months), the absence of any previous criminal record save the
present case, and the improbability of an expedited trial
conclusion in the near future, the Court is convinced that bail is
warranted. The nature and gravity of the offence, while relevant,
do not singularly dictate bail decisions. The Court must balance
these factors with the constitutional imperative of a speedy trial
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:28:51 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:39669] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10508/2025]
and protection of the accused's right to personal liberty. In the
present circumstances, this balance tilts decidedly in favor of
granting bail to the petitioners, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Court may deem fit to impose. Thus, without
delving into the finer intricacies of the prosecution's case at this
stage, this Court deems it appropriate to accord the benefit of bail
to the accused-petitioners, ensuring that their fundamental rights
are preserved while the trial proceeds expeditiously.
7. 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.
8. 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 each of
them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all
the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
25-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 05:28:51 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
