[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arjun Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10323) on 25 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10323]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12833/2025
Arjun Ram S/o Baldev Ram Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years,
Hemdai, Police Station Rash, District Beawer (Lodged In Dist.
Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12832/2025
Sanwara S/o Shri Narayan Rawat, Aged About 30 Years,
Kesharpura, P.s Pinsaganj ,distt. Ajmer (Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Vyas
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
25/02/2026
These applications for third bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by petitioners who have 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 Nimbahera
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any
The first and second bail applications filed on behalf of
petitioners were dismissed with the liberty to the petitioners to file
fresh bail applications after recording of statement of Seizure
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 06:33:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10323] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12833/2025]
Officer. Now the statement of Seizure Officer has been record.
Hence, these third applications for bail have been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that, as per the prosecution story, the
petitioners were escorting the vehicle carrying narcotic contraband
weighing 290 kgs of poppy straw. It is further submitted that the
petitioners have been in judicial custody since 25.05.2024 (1 year
9 months as on today). It is also submitted that out of total 20
prosecution witnesses, statement of only 1 witness have been
recorded and the pace of the trial is very slow.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024], decided on
22.05.2025, 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
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 06:33:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10323] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12833/2025]
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 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.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioners have been in custody since 25.05.2024, i.e. for
about 1 year, 9 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 applications 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.
However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that there are no
past antecedents against any of the petitioner and out of total 20
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 06:33:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10323] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12833/2025]
prosecution witnesses, statement of only 1 witness have been
recorded; the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of
about 56 days; and the petitioners are in custody since long.
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; there is no criminal antecedent against any of the
petitioner; the challan has already been filed; the petitioners have
remained in custody since 25.05.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 9
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
petitioners on bail.
Consequently, the third bail applications under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioners 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 each 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 petitioners 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
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 06:33:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10323] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12833/2025]
granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation,
shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail
granted to the petitioners today by this Court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
226 & 227-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 06:33:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
