[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Fardeen Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6639) on 5 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6639]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1614/2026
Fardeen Khan S/o Rauf @ Bhaiyu, Aged About 25 Years,
Naugaon Ps Arnod Dist Pratapgarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
05/02/2026
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the 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 Arnod
3. District Pratapgarh
4. Offences alleged in the Section 8/22 of NDPS Act and
FIR Section 3/25 of Arms Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 22(c) of NDPS Act
While arguing present second bail application on behalf of
the petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that though, first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 17.12.2025 passed by this Court
in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15435/2025 with a
liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application after recording of
statement of the Seizure Officer before learned trial court.
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6639] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1614/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the
Court to the orders-sheets of the trial court and submits that since
the post of concerned Presiding Officer is vacant and charge has
been handed over to another Judicial Officer, therefore, recording
of statement of Seizure Officer is not possible at the present
moment. It is further submitted that at this stage, charges have
not yet been framed and the FSL report too has not been
produced before the trial court. Hence, it is prayed that in view of
prolonged custody of the petitioner, he may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated.
He further submits that, as per the prosecution story, contraband
M.D. (weighing 1,650 grams contained in seven plastic bags),
which is stated to be above the commercial quantity, was
recovered from the poultry farm.
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 06.04.2025, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 21.07.2025,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 67 days.
Learned counsel argues that such an unexplained lapse
occurred on the part of the concerned Seizure Officer, as the
samples were sent to the FSL after an inordinate and unjustified
delay. He has also submitted that Clause 1.13 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. It is further contended that mandatory requirements
under the NDPS Act were not complied with in the present case
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6639] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1614/2026]
and the proceedings under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act were
undertaken after inordinate delay of 67 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Surepally Srinivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State
of Telangana) reported in 2025 Cr.LR (SC) 680 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the event of non-compliance
with the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act,
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and, consequently, to
the grant of bail.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioner has been in custody since 06.04.2025 i.e. for
about last 10 months as on today. 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 application and submitted that the contraband
recovered in this matter is above the commercial quantity and the
crime committed in the present case is against the society. In
support of his contentions, learned Public Prosecutor has also
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the
Inspector of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No.259/2025,
wherein it was held that minor and procedural irregularities
pointed out do not affect the core of the prosecution case,
therefore it is prayed that the petitioner may not be enlarged on
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6639] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1614/2026]
bail. However, he does not refute that the samples were sent for
FSL after an inordinate delay of about 67 days in violation of the
Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988.
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; and the challan has already been filed; the petitioner
has remained in custody since 06.04.2025, i.e. for about 10
months as on today; and 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 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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
194-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 05:52:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
