[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chagana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16169) on 7 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:16169]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 3782/2026
Chagana Ram S/o Bhavaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dela
Marg,nibawas, Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Champawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
07/04/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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 Bhimal
3. District Jalore
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/22 of the
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS
Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 07.02.2026
order
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 19.03.2024,
Ghevarram, Sub-Inspector of Police Station Leel, Bhinmal,
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16169] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-3782/2026]
acting upon confidential informant information, conducted a
lawful search at the residential premises of Chhaganaram
situated in the jurisdiction of Nimbawas, wherefrom a
substantial quantity of contraband was recovered from his
conscious possession, including Tramadol Hydrochloride SR
tablets (Covidol 100 SR) contained in 73 boxes totaling
36,500 tablets (weighing 3,650 grams), along with
additional recoveries from a third carton comprising Adnok-
N (Editax-N-2) tablets (1,400), Eddnok-N (Eddnok-N)
tablets (1,400), Niztor-10 tablets (960), and Editax-N-2
tablets (7,100), all of which were held without any valid
license or authorization; consequently, a criminal case
under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act was registered and
investigation commenced and upon completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against present
accused under Sections 8/22, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act
and against co-accused Suresh Bhargava under Sections
8/22 and 29 of the Act. The Ist, 2nd and 3rd bail
Application Nos.5137/2024, 13488/2022 & 5365/2025 were
dismissed on 10.05.2024, 25.02.2025 & 13.11.2025 were
dismissed. Till now out of total 22 witnesses, only two have
been examined, 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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16169] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-3782/2026]
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.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5.1. Upon a meticulous examination of the record, it is evident
that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.03.2024.
Despite the considerable lapse of time, only two witnesses
out of the total 22 projected witnesses have been
examined, reflecting a manifest and unjustifiable delay in
the trial proceedings.
5.2. A critical and determinative facet emanating from the
testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-1) is that the
alleged recovery of contraband was effected from premises
not in the exclusive dominion of the petitioner, but from
land held in joint possession along with nine other co-
sharers. The witness has unequivocally deposed:
"यह कहना सही है कि मैंने अनुसंधान के दौरान बरामदगी वाले खेत का राजस्व
रिकोर्ड पत्रावली पर लिया था जो प्रदर्श पी-45 से 50 है । यह कहना सही है कि
उक्त बरामदगी वाला खेत 10 लोगों के शामिलाती है । यह कहना सही है कि
जमाबंदी में वर्णित 10 खातेदारों से मैंने इस बात की पूछताछ नही ं की कि उक्त
बरामदगी वाले खेत में कास्त किसकी है व उस पर बना मकान किसका है । मैंने
उन खातेदारों से यह नही ं पूछा कि उक्त मकान किसी एक खातेदार का है या सभी
का है । धारा 42(2) एनडीपीएस एक्ट की सूचना दो प्रतियों में तैयार की गई थी।
यह कहना सही है ।"
This admission, far from being incidental, assumes
profound legal significance and constitutes a formidable
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16169] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-3782/2026]
pillar of the petitioner's defence. The prosecution has
conspicuously failed to establish that the petitioner
exercised exclusive possession, conscious control, or
singular dominion over the recovered contraband. The
doctrine of joint possession, by its very nature, denotes
shared custody and collective control among multiple
individuals, thereby engendering a palpable and reasonable
doubt as to the petitioner's exclusive knowledge or
involvement.
5.3. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating exclusive
possession, the attribution of unilateral culpability upon the
petitioner becomes legally untenable and factually
precarious. Mere presence at, or association with, a location
jointly held cannot, in the eyes of law, be transmuted into
proof of conscious and exclusive possession, particularly
under the stringent framework of the NDPS Act.
5.4. This infirmity is further exacerbated by the prosecution's
failure to interrogate or examine the other co-sharers
reflected in the revenue records, thereby leaving a
conspicuous lacuna in the chain of circumstances and
weakening the evidentiary edifice sought to be erected
against the petitioner. The recovery from a jointly possessed
site, bereft of corroborative material establishing exclusivity,
significantly erodes the probative value of the prosecution's
case.
5.4. Compounding these substantive deficiencies is a glaring
procedural lapse, inasmuch as the seizure was conducted in
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16169] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-3782/2026]
the absence of a Magistrate, a safeguard envisaged under
the statutory scheme and reinforced through Standing
Order No. 1/1989 issued by the Central Government. Such
deviation casts a serious cloud over the sanctity, legality,
and evidentiary reliability of the alleged recovery. While
these observations are prima facie in nature, they
underscore the imperative necessity of a fair, impartial, and
dispassionate trial, with a caveat that the trial court shall
adjudicate the matter uninfluenced by any tentative
expression herein. Lastly, the inordinate delay in the
progress of trial wherein only two witnesses have been
examined out of a total of twenty-two constitutes a
manifest infraction of the petitioner's fundamental right to a
speedy trial. Such a constitutional guarantee cannot be
eclipsed by statutory embargoes, including those contained
in Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Where a conflict arises
between fundamental rights and statutory restrictions, the
former must be accorded primacy, lest the administration of
justice itself be rendered illusory.
5.5. 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
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16169] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-3782/2026]
liberty contained in Article 21.
5.6. The Court emphasizes that a "reasonable period" for
completion of trial is ideally within one year, or at most two
years under exceptional circumstances. Detention beyond
this period without meaningful progress is a violation of
fundamental rights.
5.7. Balancing the gravity of the offence with the constitutional
guarantee of a fair trial, prolonged pre-trial detention
without adjudication is effectively a denial of justice. Lost
years of liberty cannot be restored, underscoring the need
for judicial prudence.
5.8. Considering the strong and arguable point arising from the
joint possession of the place of recovery, along with the
procedural irregularities and the trial delay, this Court
deems it just and proper to extend bail to the petitioner.
6. 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 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
111-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 04:33:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
