[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramniwas vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16782) on 8 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:16782]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 1164/2026
Ramniwas S/o Ranaram Vishnoi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khedi
Salwa, Police Station Dangiyabas, District Jodhpur, At Present
Posted As Constable No. 730 Reserve Police Line Jodhpur Rural
District Jodhpur (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khillery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Champawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/04/2026
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 Mangalwad
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/18 & 8/29 of
the NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 02.08.2025
order
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case unfolds thus: on
29.03.2023, the Station House Officer, Mangalwad, namely
Kanchandrashekhar, while conducting a duly constituted naka
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
(checkpoint) operation near Royal Guest House, intercepted a
Toyota car bearing registration No. MP-09-CM-9519. Upon
stopping the vehicle, a lawful search was undertaken in the
presence of independent witnesses, namely Shamsuddin alias
Annu (driver), Om Prakash, Smt. Raju, and Smt. Preeti Maliwal.
2.1. In the course of such search, 20 plastic packets containing
an aggregate quantity of 41.55 kilograms of illicit opium were
recovered from the vehicle, which ex facie falls within the ambit of
commercial quantity. In view of the aforesaid incriminating
recovery and attendant circumstances, the involvement of the
applicant/accused Ramniwas has been prima facie established,
attracting the rigours of Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. His earlier
bail application was dismissed by this court till now only seven
witnesses have been examined out of total 20 witnesses. 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.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and upon a meticulous perusal of the material available on
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
record, this Court proceeds to evaluate the present bail application
in the backdrop of the settled principles governing grant of bail,
particularly under the stringent regime of the NDPS Act.
6. At the outset, it emerges from the record that the presence
of certain individuals, namely Shamshuddin, Om Prakash, Smt.
Raju and Smt. Preeti, was indicated at the alleged place of
occurrence. However, upon a closer scrutiny of the prosecution
case, it becomes manifest that the implication of the present
petitioner is not founded upon any direct, independent, or
substantive evidence. Rather, the prosecution story unfolds in a
sequential and derivative manner, wherein the name of Mukesh
Patidar is first indicated by Shamshuddin and Azim Hussain,
thereafter Mukesh Patidar, in turn, implicates the present
petitioner Ramniwas, as a person who allegedly gave instructions
to co-accused to deliver the contraband to another person Jagdish
Bishnoi. Precisely, the petitioner was arrested in this case three
years back on the strength of a confession of co-accused made to
a police officer while in police custody.
6.1. Thus, the entire edifice of the prosecution case, insofar as it
concerns the present petitioner, appears to be constructed upon a
chain of inter se disclosures of co-accused persons, rather than
any cogent, direct, or corroborative evidence. It is trite law that
the statement of a co-accused, unless duly tested and proved in
accordance with law, does not constitute substantive evidence and
cannot, in isolation, form the sole basis for fastening criminal
liability. In the present case, the persons whose statements are
being relied upon have neither been subjected to the rigours of
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
cross-examination nor has it been demonstrated that they would
necessarily be produced before the trial court as witnesses.
Consequently, the evidentiary value of such disclosures, at this
stage, remains tenuous, fragile, and inherently suspect.
6.2. At this stage, it would be apposite to advert to the settled
position of law governing the evidentiary value of disclosure
statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Inayatullah vs. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 483) has lucidly expounded the
limited scope of admissibility of such statements, holding that for
the application of Section 27, the statement must be dissected
into its constituent parts, and only that portion which is the
immediate and proximate cause of discovery can be treated as
legally admissible evidence, while the remaining part, being in the
nature of a confession, must be excluded. The Hon'ble Court
observed as under:
"For the application of Section 27 the statement must be
split into its components and to separate the admission
portion. Only those components or portions which were
the immediate cause of the discovery would be legal
evidence and not the rest which must be excised and
rejected."
A conjoint reading of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the
aforesaid authoritative pronouncement makes it manifest that a
disclosure statement, in the absence of any consequential
recovery or discovery, cannot be treated as a reliable or
substantive piece of evidence in isolation. Section 27, being an
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
exception carved out to Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence
Act, must be construed strictly and its admissibility remains
confined only to the extent expressly contemplated therein.
6.3. In the present case, the implication of the petitioner appears
to be founded solely upon the disclosure statements of co-accused
persons, without there being any independent recovery, discovery,
or corroborative material attributable to the petitioner. Such
derivative implication, resting exclusively upon untested and
uncorroborated disclosures, prima facie lacks the evidentiary
robustness required to sustain continued incarceration at the pre-
trial stage. To invoke Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there should, at
least, availability of some material to show that either the
accused was an abettor or a conspirator for commission of crime
but here, nothing concrete is there on record.
6.4. While this Court remains conscious of the rigours engrafted
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the said statutory embargo
cannot be invoked in a mechanical manner where the foundational
material itself appears tenuous and is not supported by legally
admissible evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
6.5. This Court is also mindful of the fact that in the earlier round
of litigation, the prayer for bail was declined primarily having
regard to the quantity of the alleged contraband. However, at the
present stage, the focus of judicial scrutiny is not confined merely
to the quantity involved, but extends to the qualitative worth of
the evidence collected by the prosecution. When the material
placed on record, prima facie, reflects a lack of independent
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
corroboration and rests predominantly upon derivative disclosures,
the rigour of such consideration stands considerably diluted.
6.6. Furthermore, it is discernible from the record that the delay
in culmination of the trial is neither incidental nor attributable to
any singular cause, but appears to be systemic and structural in
nature. The proceedings have remained stagnant for a
considerable duration, and the likelihood of early conclusion of
trial appears remote. In addition thereto, the petitioner has raised
substantial and arguable issues concerning non-compliance with
mandatory procedural safeguards and alleged infraction of
Standing Order No. 1/1989 issued by the Central Government,
particularly with respect to seizure, sampling, sealing, and
preservation of the contraband. These aspects, if ultimately
substantiated, have the potential to strike at the very root of the
prosecution case.
6.7. It is no doubt true that Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes
stringent limitations on the grant of bail, especially in cases
involving commercial quantity. However, such statutory embargo
cannot be construed in a manner so as to eclipse or neutralize the
overarching constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and
speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Where a discernible conflict arises between statutory
restrictions and fundamental rights, the latter must prevail, for
constitutional supremacy cannot be subordinated to procedural
rigidity.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
6.8. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that pre-
conviction detention is not punitive in character, but is intended
solely to secure the presence of the accused during trial. The
presumption of innocence continues to operate with full vigour
until guilt is established in accordance with law. In the present
case, the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period
of nearly three years, yet the trial has made negligible progress.
Such prolonged incarceration, devoid of meaningful advancement
in proceedings, results in an unwarranted attrition of personal
liberty and fails to satisfy the test of proportionality implicit in
Article 21.
6.9. The aforesaid constitutional position stands fortified by the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No.
15478/2025, decided on 06.01.2026), wherein it has been
categorically held that the right to a speedy trial cannot be
defeated by subjecting an undertrial to indefinite incarceration,
and that prolonged custody, in the absence of substantial progress
in trial, renders continued detention constitutionally impermissible.
The same principle has been reiterated in Rabi Prakash vs.
State of Odisha (SLP (Crl.) No. 4169/2023, decided on
13.07.2023), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that
in appropriate cases, the constitutional mandate of personal
liberty may override the statutory embargo contained in Section
37 of the NDPS Act.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16782] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-1164/2026]
6.10. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances,
particularly the absence of independent incriminating material
against the petitioner, the derivative nature of allegations based
solely on co-accused disclosures, the prolonged incarceration of
nearly three years, the sluggish pace of trial, and the absence of
any material indicating likelihood of misuse of liberty, this Court is
of the considered opinion that continued detention of the
petitioner would amount to an unjustified, disproportionate, and
constitutionally impermissible encroachment upon his right to life
and personal liberty.
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 483
BNSS 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
136-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 08:52:24 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
