[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Babu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5601) on 30 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5601]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1564/2026
Babu Singh S/o Shri Gaje Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident
Of Devaliya Police Station Banar District Jodhpur (At Present
Lodged In Sub Jail Bilara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
30/01/2026
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 Bilara
3. District Jodhpur (Rural)
4. Offences alleged in the Sections 8 & 18 of NDPS Act
FIR
5. Offences added, if any Sections 25 & 29 of NDPS Act
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12752/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 19.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the
statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first bail application,
the statement of Seizure Officer - Mool Singh (P.W.1), has been
recorded. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:14:38 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5601] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1564/2026]
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 Opium Milk
(weighing 4.303 kilograms contained in three plastic bags), which is
stated to be above the commercial quantity was recovered from the
truck which was driven by the petitioner. It is submitted that there
are there are no previous criminal antecedents pending against the
petitioner.
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 23.08.2024, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 08.10.2024,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 46 days. It is
also submitted that out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, statement
of only 2 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. From the statement of Seizure Officer - Mool Singh
(P.W.1), it has been established that mandatory requirements
under the NDPS Act were not complied with in the present case
and that proceedings under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act were
undertaken after inordinate delay of 30 days. It is additionally
contended that as per averments in the FIR, alleged recovery was
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:14:38 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5601] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1564/2026]
effected in the afternoon before sunset 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.
He has also contended that there is a violation of Section 52-A ibid
as well.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also 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 petitioner has been in custody since 23.08.2024, i.e. for
about 1 year, 5 months and 7 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
crime committed in the present case is against the society.
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:14:38 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5601] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1564/2026]
However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that out of total
14 prosecution witnesses, statement of only 2 witness have been
recorded; the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of
about 46 days; and the petitioner is 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; and the challan has already been filed; the petitioner
has remained in custody since 23.08.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 5
months and 7 days 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
229-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:14:38 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
