[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamlesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6368) on 4 February, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:6368]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1363/2025

Kamlesh S/o Sundar Lal Malviya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Aramnagar Kanjarda, P.s. Manasa , Dist Neemuch (M.p.)
(Presently Lodged In Chittorgarh Jail)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Shree Kant Verma
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

04/02/2026

1. This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439

Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.342/2023, registered at Police Station

Sadar Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, for offences under

Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the

prosecution, in the present case, contraband (poppy husk/straw)

weighing 103.800 kgs was recovered from the conscious

possession of the present petitioner and the co-accused - Jai

Babu. The petitioner and the co-accused - Jai Babu were arrested

on the spot. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused - Jai

Babu (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10766/2025) has

already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 28.10.2025. Learned counsel submitted

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 10:28:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6368] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1363/2025]

that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable

from that of the co-accused - Jai Babu who has already been

enlarged on bail.

3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any

criminal antecedents; till date out of 20 cited prosecution

witnesses, statements of only 04 cited prosecution witnesses have

been recorded before the competent criminal Court; and

therefore, the trial against him is not likely to be concluded in the

near future. On these grounds, learned counsel implored this

Court to enlarged the petitioner on bail.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present

case, contraband greater than commercial quantity was recovered

from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present

petitioner and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the

allegations levelled against him, he does not deserve to be

enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

6. The order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court while enlarging the co-accused - Jai Babu on

bail is reproduced below for ready reference:

"This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matters. The requisite details of the matters are tabulated herein below:

S. No.                                  Particulars of the case

     2.         Police Station                          Sadar Chittorgarh


                              (Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 10:28:45 AM)

 [2026:RJ-JD:6368]                      (3 of 5)                    [CRLMB-1363/2025]


   3.     District                                Chittorgarh
   4.     Offences alleged in the FIR             Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS Act
   5.     Offences added, if any                  Section 8/25 of NDPS Act

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that out of a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 04 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery of narcotic contraband was made from the co- accused Kamlesh and not from the present petitioner and the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of statement of the co- accused person. While it is true that, there is a fetter under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding grant of bail to an accused having illegal possession of commercial quantity of contraband but a fundamental right of speedy trial to them cannot be permitted to be flouted.

In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner have placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024, wherein, while allowing the bail application, it was observed as under :

"7. 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 liberty contained in Article 21.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

9. 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."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challan has already been filed in this matter and the petitioner has been in custody since 26.08.2023 (more than 2 years) and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused- petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioner is involved in the offence against society at large, however, he is not in a position to refute the fact that petitioner has been in custody since long and out of a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 04 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 10:28:45 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6368] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1363/2025]

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the material available on record; the petitioner has been in custody since 26.08.2023 (more than 2 years) and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time; without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of 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 he 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 his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial."

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case particularly keeping in view that the co-

accused - Jai Babu has already been enlarged on bail by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court; the petitioner is in judicial custody;

and the trial against him is not likely to be concluded in the near

future, and without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of

the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483

BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-

petitioner- Kamlesh S/o Sundar Lal Malviya, arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.342/2023, registered at Police Station

Sadar Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if