[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jogender Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:16986]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2973/2026
Jogender Singh S/o Kashmir Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Village 43- PS, Police Station Sameja Kothi, District
Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Raisinghnagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/04/2026
The matter comes up on the application (I.A. No.1/2026)
seeking preponement of date of hearing.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application
is allowed.
The matter is taken up for consideration today itself.
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner who has been arrested in
the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
2. Police Station Sameja Kothi
3. District Sri Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any -
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:31:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16986] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2973/2026]
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10024/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-
sheet. Now the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, this second
application for bail has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the contraband (heroin 321 gm) recovered from
the petitioner is marginally higher the commercial quantity (250
gm). He further submitted that statement of Seizure Officer has
been recorded as PW-1. As per his statement, mandatory
provisions was not complied with.
The relevant portion of the statement of Seizure Officer is
reproduced as under:-
";g ckr lgh gS fd tkek ryk'kh esa tks lkeku feyk Fkk mldks
vu'khYM j[kk x;k FkkA ghjk flag ekSdk ij ugha vk;k FkkA
cjken'kqnk iSdsV dk IykfLVd FkSfy;ksa lfgr dqy otu ugha fd;k
x;k FkkA vt[kqn dgk fd vafre IykfLVd FkSyh ftlesa eknd inkFkZ
Fkk mldk otu fd;k x;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vafre IykfLVd
dh FkSyh dk Hkh vyx ls otu ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd
HkkSfrd lR;kiu dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku Hkh FkSyh dk vyx ls otu
ugha fd;k x;k A ;g dguk xyr gS fd cjken'kqnk inkFkZ dk otu
T;knk fn[kkus ds mn~ns'; ls esjs }kjk FkSyh dk vyx ls otu uk
fd;k x;k gks ;g dguk xyr gS fd FkSyh dk otu vf/kd Fkk vkSj
esjs }kjk tkucw>dj mldk otu uk fd;k x;k gksA "
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the alleged recovery of contraband was stated to be affected
on 14.05.2025 whereas same were sent for the FSL on
29.07.2025, after an inordinate and unjustified delay of almost
two months and 15 days. He has also submitted that Clause 1.13
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:31:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16986] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2973/2026]
of Standing Order No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988, mandates that
samples drawn ought to have been sent for FSL examination
within 72 hours from recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan (SLP
(Crl.) No. 5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 5732/2025),
decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the
delay and lack of substantive evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wajid Ali @
Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal
No.7049/2025) decided on 09.02.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
there is no criminal antecedents under NDPS Act against the
petitioner and only one case under Section 498-A IPC is pending
against him. He further submitted that only one witness has been
examined out of 13 witnesses.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been
filed; the petitioner is in custody since 15.05.2025; looking to the
pace of the trial, the trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently
long time to conclude; therefore, further incarceration of the
petitioner is not warranted, and the benefit of bail deserves to be
granted.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to the
allegations under the NDPS Act, he may not be enlarged on bail.
However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that the FSL
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:31:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16986] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2973/2026]
samples were sent after an inordinate delay of about two months
and 15 days and the fact that there is no criminal antecedent
against the petitiooner under the NDPS Act.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record; considering Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988
dated 15.03.1988, which mandates that samples drawn ought to
have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from
recovery; the challan has already been filed; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 15.05.2025; and that the trial of the
case will take sufficient long time to conclude; without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
in any other case, provided applicant furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that
court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till completion of the trial.
In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing
or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary
adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail
granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation,
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:31:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16986] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2973/2026]
shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail
granted to the petitioner today by this Court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
60-Ramesh/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:31:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
