Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chamkaur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:40097) on 9 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:40097]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 9829/2025
Chamkaur Singh S/o Ruldu Singh, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Dera Baba Sidh Barnala Road, Gil Kalla, P.s. Sadar
Rampuraful, District Bhatinda, (Punjab).
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
09/09/2025
1. The present fourth bail application has been filed under
Section 483, BNSS on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in
connection with F.I.R. No. 131/2020, Police Station Naal, District
Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 8/22, 8/25 & 8/29 of the
NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He
submits that the trial is pending for about five years and the
petitioner is behind bars since 31.10.2020 and till date, only six
prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 15
witnesses and hence, the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently
long time.
3. Counsel further submits that co accused Harpreet Singh @
Sarba Singh has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40097] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-9829/2025]
of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12347/2024
vide order dated 04.12.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that the
petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance
on the recent order dated 29.01.2024 passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Begum @ Bewa @
Beguni @ Mamata Bibi vs. The State of West Bengal
(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.68/2024), wherein the
Hon'ble ApexCourt held as under:
"1. The petitioner is charged with offences
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act 1985. She is in custody for a period of two
years. Though the trial has progressed, only
five witnesses out of ten have been examined
as of date.
2. Bearing in mind the above circumstances
and conscious as the Court is of the provisions
of Section 37, we are of the view that it would
be appropriate to grant bail to protect the
personal liberty of the petitioner who faces an
interminably delayed custodial period.
Consequently, we order and direct that the
petitioner be released on bail, subject to such
terms and conditions as may be imposed by
the Special Court under the NDPS Act in
connection with Case No 1370 of 2021 dated
26 November 2021 (NDPS Case No 264 of
2021). The petitioner shall, however,
cooperate in all respects in the early conclusion
of the trial without seeking adjournment."
5. Counsel also placed reliance on order dated 13.07.2023
passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash
vs. The State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.4169/2023), wherein Hon'ble the Apex 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.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40097] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-9829/2025]
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."
6. He also placed reliance on the order dated 01.08.2022
passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary
@ Bapan vs. The State of West Bengal (Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022), wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court
held as under:
"The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in
F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed
under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Bongaon, West
Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are
informed that the petitioner has undergone
custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months
as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary
stage, as only one witness has been examined.
The petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of
sentence undergone by the petitioner and all
the attending circumstances but without
expressing any views in the merits of the case,
we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner."
7. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.K.A.
Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 whereby, while dealing with the
cases where fetters are placed on Court's power to grant bail and
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40097] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-9829/2025]
the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, the
Court 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 the rigours of such provisions will
meltdown 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 being
used as the solemetric for denial of bail or for
wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy
trial."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance
on decision dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court
in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023, wherein it
has been observed by the Court that delay in trial can also be a
ground to release an accused person on bail despite the
restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and
submits that benefit of bail may not be granted to the petitioner.
10. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
11. It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far
suffered incarceration of about five years and trial is still going on.
It is also not disputed that only 6 witnesses out of 15 have been
examined till date. Meaning thereby, the conclusion of trial is
going to take sufficient long time.
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40097] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-9829/2025]
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above matters as well as 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
were 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered for
release of the accused persons who were in custody for a period of
two to four years.
13. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this bail
application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused
petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him is
proceeding at a snail's pace.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, the present fourth bail application filed under Section
483, BNSS is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner
Chamkaur Singh S/o Ruldu Singh shall be released on bail in
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:40097] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-9829/2025]
connection with F.I.R. No. 131/2020, Police Station Naal, District
Bikaner 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 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.
15. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found to be involved
in any other case involving offence punishable under the N.D.P.S.
Act within a period of six months from now, learned Public
Prosecutor shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application
for cancellation of the present bail.
(REKHA BORANA),J
67-manila/-
(Uploaded on 09/09/2025 at 06:50:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
