[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sharwan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10326) on 25 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:10326]

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1492/2026

Sharwan Lal S/o Shri Naruram Alias Narsingh Ram, Aged About
40 Years, Resident Of Anwana, Police Station Khedapa, District
Jodhpur (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                     ----Petitioner
                             Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ankit Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

25/02/2026 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          Khedapa
   3.      District                Jodhpur Rural

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8, 18, 21 and 25 FIR of the NDPS Act.

5. Offences added, if any -

The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7449/2025 was dismissed as not

pressed vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court . Hence,

this second application for bail has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations

levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He submits

that, as per the statement of the Seizure Officer (PW-1) recorded

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:09:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10326] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-1492/2026]

before the learned Trial Court, the alleged recovery was effected

from a place which does not belong to the petitioner. The relevant

portion the statement of Seizure Officer (PW-1) is reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"यह कहना सही हुआ है । कि प्रदर्श पी.11 नक्शानजरी बरामदगीस्थल में मु र्तिब स्थान सरहद अणवाणा लिखा है , अजखुद कहा कि बरामदगीस्थल अणवाणा गां व की सरहद में आया हुआ है ।यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल के आगे से कटाण रास्ता है , जो ढाणियो में जाता है । यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल के कमरे के ताला नही लगा हुआ था। यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल मकान के चारो तरफ चारदीवारी नही थी। यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल का दरवाजा कटाणी रास्ते की तरफ खुलता है । यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल छीणो व टीनशेड से कच्चा बना हुआ है । यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल के बाहर श्रवणराम के नाम की नेमप्लेट नहीं लगी थी। यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल से श्रवणराम के नाम के तथा बरामदगीस्थल के स्वामित्व के संबंध में कोई दस्तावेज नहीं लिये थे। यह कहना सही है कि बरामदगीस्थल के स्वामित्व के संबंध में मौके पर सरपंच, ग्रामसेवक या पटवारी को बुलाकर स्थान किसके नाम से है , इस संबंध में तस्दीक नहीं करवाई थी। मुझे इस बात की जानकारी नहीं है कि बरामदगीस्थल वाला खे त कई लोगों का सामलाती हो. इस संबंध में अनुसंधान अधिकारी ही बता सकते है ।। यह कहना सही है कि प्रदर्श पी. 11 बरामदगीस्थल के पड़ौसी हरदे वाराम, मां गीलाल, नरसिंगाराम व अन्य किसी पड़ौसी को मौके की कार्यवाही के दौरान बुलाकर बरामदगीस्थल के संबंध में पूछताछ नहीं की थी। यह कहना सही है कि कार्यवाही के दौरान बरामदगीस्थल के आस पास के किसी पड़ौसी ने मौके पर आकर उक्त घर किसका है , इसके बारे में नहीं बताया था। यह कहना सही है कि पु लिस जाब्ता के पहुं चने के बाद मौके पर जो लोग इकठा हुए. उनसे मेरे द्वारा किसी प्रकार की पूछताछ नहीं की थी। यह कहना सही है कि मौके पर बरामदगीस्थल पर बरामदगी के समय महिलाये व बच्चे मौजूद थे , उनसे मेरे द्वारा पूछताछ नहीं की गई थी। यह कहना सही है कि बरामदशुदा थैली पर श्रवणराम का नाम नही लिखा था"

Learned counsel submits that the Seizure Officer himself has

admitted that no verification was made to establish that the land in

question belonged to the petitioner. No revenue record was

summoned by the Seizure Officer/Investigating Officer. In these

circumstances, it is not substantiated that the land from which the

alleged contraband was recovered belonged to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband

was stated to be affected on 11.03.2024, whereas, samples were

forwarded to the FSL for examination on 22.03.2024, resulting in

an unaccounted delay of approximately 11 days which is in

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:09:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10326] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-1492/2026]

contravention of Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988 dated

15.03.1988 wherein it is mandated that samples drawn ought to

have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from

recovery. It is additionally contended that as per averments in

the FIR, alleged recovery was effected in the day time and as per

provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory to obtain

prior authorization from a competent authority for search and

seizure. It is further submitted that out of total 23 prosecution

witnesses, statement of only 1 witness has been recorded till date

and the pace of the trial is very slow.

In support of his contention, 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 has further placed reliance

on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal

(Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs.

State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

No(s).915 of 2023.

Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of

Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail, it has been

observed as under:

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:09:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10326] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-1492/2026]

"9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has 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 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.

It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed

and the petitioner has been in custody since 11.03.2024, i.e. for

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:09:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10326] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-1492/2026]

about 1 year, 11 months and 14 days 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

one case of similar nature is registered against the petitioner.

However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that out of total

23 prosecution witnesses, statement of only 1 witness have been

recorded; the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of

about 11 days; and the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2024,

i.e. for about 1 year, 11 months and 14 days as on today.

In response, learned counsel submits that in that case an FIR

bearing No.14/2023 registered at Police Station Mangaliyawas,

District Ajmer, under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act, in which the

petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench

of this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No. 6454/2024.

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 11.03.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 11

months and 14 days as on today; and the trial of the case will

(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 07:09:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:10326] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-1492/2026]

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.

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, shall be at liberty to move an application

seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this

Court.