[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19180) on 16 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:19180]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10675/2025

Jagdish S/o Poonmaram, Aged About 35 Years, Jambhoji Ka
Mandir Kabuli Ps Dhorimana District Badmer (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Barmer)
                                                 ----Petitioner
                            Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                               ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                  assisted by Mr.Robin Singh
                                  Mr. Vishal Sharma
                                  Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bisnoi, PP




                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/04/2026

1. The matter comes upon an application (IA No.1/26) for

modification in the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Court in

the instant bail application. The application stands disposed of as

the matter is being finally heard and decided in the following

manner:

1.1. 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                  Dhorimanna
     3.     District                                  Barmer
     4.     Offences alleged in the FIR               Section 8/15 of the NDPS
                                                      Act
     5.     Offences added, if any                    Section 8/25 and 29 of
                                                      the NDPS Act

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(2 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

6. Date of passing of impugned -

order

2. The concise facts of the case as per the First Information

Report are that on 03.12.2022, Sukhram, accompanied by the

police party, proceeded from the police station for local and

Special Act enforcement proceedings and reached the territorial

limits of Meethra. During the course of such patrol, a secret

informer furnished intelligence, whereupon the police party, acting

in accordance with law, proceeded to the agricultural field situated

near Jambhoji Temple, allegedly belonging to Jagdish. There, near

a hut constructed in the field, one man was noticed standing. He

was identified by Constable Jagaram as Jagdish. Upon noticing the

police contingent, the said person allegedly fled from the spot.

Thereafter, in compliance with statutory procedure, the police

conducted a search near the hut and allegedly discovered ten

plastic sacks concealed beneath a heap of fodder/stalks,

containing poppy husk (Doda Post). Upon weighment, the

aggregate quantity was found to be 179.165 kilograms. It is

further alleged that the said contraband was in the conscious

possession of Jagdish, who was unable to produce any valid

licence or permit authorising possession thereof. Consequent

thereto, requisite seizure and spot proceedings were undertaken,

and the present case came to be registered, whereafter

investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on

18.03.2025. His first bail application being SBCRLMB

No.8168/2025 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(3 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

order dated 09.07.2025 with liberty to file fresh bail application

after filing of challan. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused, reiterating the

grounds set forth in the bail application, contended that the

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It was urged

that no further custodial interrogation or recovery remains

pending from the applicant and that no contraband substance was

recovered from his personal possession. It was further submitted

that the matter is still under investigation and both investigation

and trial are likely to consume considerable time. The applicant

has remained in continuous judicial custody since 18.03.2025.

Hence, prayer has been made for enlarging the applicant on bail.

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. Before

proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce the order dated

30.10.2025, which is as under:-

1. The present 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. -

400/2022, P.S. - Dhorimana, Dist. - Barmer for the offence under Sections - 8/15 of NDPS Act .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. present on behalf of the State. Perused the material available on record.

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(4 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

3. Noticing the cavalier manner of investigation on 27.10.2025 this court passed the following order-

1. A rather bizarre situation has emerged in the present case, wherein it is alleged that on 03.12.2022, a police team led by Sub-Inspector Sukhram reached an open agricultural field, from where certain quantity of poppy husk was recovered. The foundation and substratum of the allegations, as revealed from the FIR, Seizure Memo, and charge- sheet, indicate that a person was seen by the police team fleeing from the spot of occurrence, and one of the team members, Constable Jagram, identified that person to be the present applicant. The sole piece of evidence implicating the applicant happened to be the statement of Constable Jagram as per the seizyre memo and FIR.

2. The seizure was effected on 03.12.2022, whereas the statement of Constable Jagram came to be recorded only on 16.03.2025. When queried as to whether Constable Jagram was not present in the country during the intervening period from 03.12.2022 to 16.03.2025, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Sub-Inspector Sukhram, the seizing officer, and Bagruram, who conducted the investigation, have remained silent in response. The statement of ASI Laduram Bishnoi, also a member of the team, was recorded on 16.03.2025. Nowhere in the seizure memo, Parchakayami, or during the preliminary investigation he made any claim regarding the identity of the petitioner. Astonishingly, after a lapse of nearly three years, his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he claimed to have identified the applicant as the person who fled away from the spot. Why this fact was not mentioned on the papers prepared on the day of seizure. Both circumstances are highly untoward and strange. The NDPS Act often called as a draconian legislation due to the stringent provisions of

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(5 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

punishment prescribed for contravention of its provisions. In the present case, the minimum sentence is ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Such a callous, casual, and unscrupulous act on the part of the police officers cannot be condoned. In my view, if such a conduct is allowed, it would always pose a serious risk to the fundamental rights of the citizens. The fulcrum of the accusation against the petitioner is the statement of these two witnesses who allegedly saw him on the spot, and if it is so; the things above must have been incoporated in the Parcha Kayami Report itself.

3. In the interest of justice, it would be expedient to direct the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, to furnish an affidavit regarding the discrepancies referred to above. He is expected to appear before this Court along with the affidavit on the next date of hearing.

3.1 Surendra Choudhary, CI, shall also remain present on the next date of hearing and is required to furnish an affidavit explaining why the statements of the aforementioned two officers, Constable Jagram and ASI Laduram Bishnoi, were recorded after an extraordinary delay.

3.2 Both the Inspectors who are present today shall also appear on the next date of hearing.

4. List the matter on 30.10.2025."

4. In pursuance of the directions passed above, the Superintendent of Police, District Barmer, is present before this Court. It has been apprised that he has duly acknowledged the callous, perfunctory, and highly negligent manner in which the investigation was conducted by the erring police officials in the present case. He has further assured this Court that appropriate disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against such officers and that the same shall be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(6 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

5. This Court cannot overlook the disturbing investigative deficiencies which have come to light. The entire record reveals that despite the allegation relating to recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, the investigation is marred with glaring lapses. The statement forming the very foundation against the present petitioner was recorded after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three years. It is also noteworthy that the said A.S.I., who has now claimed to have identified the petitioner as the person who fled from the spot, was neither cited nor shown as a member of the raiding or seizing team in any of the contemporaneous documents prepared on the date of the incident, such as the seizure memo, parcha qaymi, F.I.R., the report under Section 42, or even the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

6. The introduction of such a police witness for the first time after a lapse of three years appears highly improbable and prima facie casts a serious shadow on the fairness and authenticity of the investigation. The conduct of the investigating officials, therefore, not only exhibits sheer negligence but also gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of fabrication and afterthought. This Court observes that it is indeed a matter of grave concern that while on one hand the police claim to have effected a seizure of contraband, on the other, the same agency through such delayed and deficient investigation extends unintended benefit to the accused.

7. The Superintendent of Police has assured that stringent departmental action has already been set in motion against the erring officers and that such inquiry would be completed expeditiously. This Court, however, remains anxious to know the nature and progress of such disciplinary proceedings and makes it clear that no formality or perfunctory exercise shall be

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(7 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

tolerated in the name of inquiry. The matter is, therefore, directed to be listed on 05.12.2025 for the next course of action and for submission of a progress report regarding the disciplinary proceedings.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, where the petitioner's alleged involvement rests solely upon a belated and shaky identification made by a police official after three years of the incident, this Court finds that continued incarceration of the petitioner until the outcome of the inquiry would be wholly unjustified. Prima facie, such belated statements, especially when emanating from police personnel and unsupported by contemporaneous records, appear highly doubtful and create a situation of serious uncertainty about the veracity of the prosecution version.

9. This Court is conscious that the right to consider bail necessarily encompasses within its fold the power to grant interim bail, particularly in cases where investigative irregularities have been prima facie established and where the disciplinary inquiry is yet to culminate.

10. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is directed that the petitioner be released on interim bail for a period of 50 (Fifty) days from the date of his actual release, while keeping the bail application pending. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, undertaking to surrender himself before the concerned Jail Superintendent on the 50th day from his release without fail.

11. The Superintendent of Police, Barmer, is further directed to produce before this Court on the next date the original daily rojnamcha entry of 03.12.2022, along with the concerned officer who made such entry.

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)

(8 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]

12. The matter shall be listed on 05.12.2025 for further consideration and for perusal of the report regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the erring officials and for further hearing of the parties on regular bail.

13. The final order of the bail shall be passed whereafter.

14. List on 05.12.2025."

The Court has been informed that, following further

internal review led by the Superintendent of Police, a

departmental assessment was undertaken by the competent

authorities. This process revealed that certain officials were

responsible for lapses in the discharge of their duties. As a

result, formal disciplinary action was commenced against them,

culminating in the imposition of penalties in accordance with

service rules.

6. In this view of the matter and looking to high probability

that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these