[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jitendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:10640) on 26 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:10640]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2407/2026
Jitendra S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village
Bhaniya, Police Station Shivpura, District Pali. (Presently Lodged
At Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Raika.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
26/02/2026
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 Kaparda
3. District Jodhpur Rural
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS
FIR Act.
5. Offences added, if any -
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13704/2025 was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 16.12.2025 passed by this Court .
Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 06:52:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10640] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2407/2026]
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He
submits that the petitioner is aged about 22 years. The alleged
contraband was recovered from an abandoned vehicle, and after the
search proceedings, the petitioner was arrested; however, he was
not apprehended from the vehicle. Learned counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to the statement of Constable-Sanjay Singh,
which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"tks O;fDr xkM+h ls mrjdj Hkxs Fks mu O;fDr;ksa dks geus ugha
igpkuk FkkA Mh,lVh Vhe fdlds laidZ esa Fkh bldh eq>s tkudkjh
ugha gSA eSa ugha crk ldrk gwa fd Hkxus okys O;fDr;ksa dh dn dkBh o
gqfy;k D;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ge yksx tc ykokfjl xkM+h esa
igqaps Fks rc xkM+h esa dksbZ ekStwn ugha FkkA ftl O;fDr dks ge idM+k
Fkk mldks fdlh vkSj txg ls idM+k Fkk xkM+h esa ls ugha idM+k
FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd bl xkM+h esa fdlh izdkj ds nLrkost ftl
O;fDr dks geus fxjQ~rkj fd;k mlls lacaf/kr ugha feys FksA ;g dguk
lgh gS fd nwljk O;fDr gesa cjkenxh ds le; nLrk;kc ugha gqvk FkkA
xkM+h fMVSu djus ds nks ?k.Vs i"pkr tCrh dh dk;Zokgh djuk izkjaHk
fd;k FkkA bu nks ?k.Vs esa esjh ekStwnxh esa esjs mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa us fdlh
Hkh jktif=r vf/kdkjh o U;kf;d eftLVªsV o fMIVh fcykM+k o ,lih
tks/kiqj xzkeh.k dks ugha cqyk;k FkkA eq>s Kkr ugha gS fd ?kVuk LFky
ls fMIVh dk;kZy; fcykM+k fdruh nwjh ij gSA"
Learned counsel further submits that despite having been
summoned on nearly 10 occasion, the seizure officer has willfully
and deliberately failed to appear before the learned trial Court for
recording his statement. Bailable warrant in sum of Rs.2,000/-
was also issued against him to secure his presence, however, the
said seizure officer has continued to abstain from appearing before
the trial Court.
It is further submitted that after the incident dated
04.03.2025, the inventory of seized contraband was prepared
27.03.2025, whereas the samples were forwarded to the FSL for
examination only on 15.04.2025, resulting in an unaccounted
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 06:52:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10640] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2407/2026]
delay of approximately 42 days. The said delay is in contravention
of Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No. 1/1988 dated 15.03.1988,
which mandates that the samples drawn are required to be sent
for FSL examination within 72 hours from the date of recovery.
Additionally, it is contended that as per the averments made in the
FIR, the alleged recovery was effected at 4:15 A.M., and in terms
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, prior authorization from the
competent authority is mandatory for conducting search and
seizure. It is further submitted that out of a total of 22
prosecution witnesses, the statement of only one witness has
been recorded till date, thus, 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 judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to
Appeal No.7049/2025) decided on 09.02.2026.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has no previous
antecedents. It is further submitted that the challan has already
been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since
04.03.2025, i.e. for about 11 months and 22 days as on today.
The trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to
conclude; therefore, looking to the age of petitioner i.e. 22 years
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 06:52:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10640] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2407/2026]
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.
However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that petitioner
has no previous antecedents; the seizure officer has not turned down
for recording the statement; out of total 22 prosecution witnesses,
statement of only 1 witness have been recorded; the FSL samples
were sent after an inordinate delay of about 35 days; and the
petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2025, i.e. for about 11 months
and 22 days as on today.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
as per the statement of the Constable, the persons who had run
away from the vehicle were not identified and the alleged
contraband was recovered from an abandoned vehicle, the
petitioner was neither apprehended from the vehicle nor identified
at the spot.
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 04.03.2025, i.e. for about 11 months
and 22 days as on today; the petitioner has no previous criminal
antecedents and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 06:52:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:10640] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2407/2026]
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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
109-Abhishek/Jiender
(Uploaded on 26/02/2026 at 06:52:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
