[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dasharath Das vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:2817) on 16 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:2817]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 239/2026
Dasharath Das S/o Shri Ambadas, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Katakadi, Police Station Hathuniya, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/01/2026
The instant 2nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 of 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 Rathanjana
3. District Pratapgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 8/15
of the NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any --
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner i.e.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4220/2025 was dismissed
as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 with a
liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording
of statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of 1 st bail
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:47:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2817] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-239/2026]
application, statement of the Seizure Officer has been recorded,
hence, this 2nd bail application has been filed.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
allegation against the petitioner is false and fabricated. It is
further submitted that he is co-driver (Khalasi) of the vehicle from
which the contraband was allegedly recovered and driver Prem
Shankar S/o Ram Lal has already been enlarged on bail by this
court on 09.12.2025. It is submitted that recovery of alleged
contraband was affected on 25.02.2024, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 15.05.2024,
resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 80 days.
Learned counsel argued that such an unexplained lapse creates a
reasonable possibility of tampering with the samples, which
cannot be ruled out. He has also submitted that Clause 1.13 of
Standing Order No.1/1998 dated 15.03.1988, mandates that
samples drawn ought to have been sent for FSL examination
within 72 hours from recovery.
It is also submitted that out of total 17 prosecution
witnesses, not a single witness has been examined and looking to
the face of trial, trial will take significant long time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rambabu vs.
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 25.02.2024 i.e. about
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:47:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2817] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-239/2026]
1 year, 10 month & 22 days and the further incarceration of the
petitioner is not warranted. The trial of the case will take sufficient
long time to conclude, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to
the petitioner.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has 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 further 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:
"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 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:
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:47:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2817] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-239/2026]
"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.
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
petitioner is no right to claim a bail application, however, he is not
in a position to dispute the fact that sample was sent for FSL is
unexplained delay of about 80 days.
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 fact that out of total 17 prosecution witnesses,
not a single witness been examined so far; the challan has already
been filed; co-accused person Prem Shankar has already been
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:47:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:2817] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-239/2026]
enlarged on bail; the petitioner has remained in custody since
25.02.2024 i.e. about 1 year, 10 month & 22 days 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 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
40-Taruna/-
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 05:47:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
