[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mohammad Sajid vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:4507) on 23 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:4507]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1197/2026
Mohammad Sajid S/o Mohammad Salim, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Near Tejiya Chowki Kesai Bari Bikaner Police Station Kotgate
Bikaner (Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner) ----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/01/2026
This 2nd 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
1. FIR Number 240/2025
2. Police Station Sadar Bikaner
3. District Bikaner
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/22 of NDPS
FIR Act
5. Offences added, if any
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2025, passed in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10222/2025 with liberty to
file a fresh bail application after filing of challan.
The challan has been filed, hence, this second bail
application.
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:35:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4507] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1197/2026]
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 92.26gms), which is stated to be above
commercial quantity, was recovered in this case.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter. It is further
submitted that recovery of the alleged contraband is stated to
have been effected on 27.06.2025, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 16.07.2025,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 19 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. Therefore, same creates a reasonable possibility of
tampering with the samples, which cannot be ruled out.
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 non-compliance of Section
52-A of the NDPS Act, the petitioner deserves to be extended the
benefit of doubt and grant of bail.
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:35:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4507] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1197/2026]
It is also submitted that the petitioner has no previous
criminal antecedents of similar nature. It is further submitted that
challan has already been filed, the petitioner is in custody since
27.06.2025 and the trial of the case will take significant time,
therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the recovered
contraband is above commercial quantity and looking at the
seriousness of the offence, the petitioner may not be enlarged on
bail. However, he does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has
no criminal antecedents of similar nature and admits that samples
were sent at delayed stage and there is no explanation in this
regard.
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 is in
custody since 27.06.2025 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, this second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:35:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4507] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1197/2026]
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
253-AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 06:35:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
