[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11636) on 10 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11636]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2903/2026

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mangla Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Siwada, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Sanchore)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Ankit Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/03/2026 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          Chitalwana
   3.      District                Jalore

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/18 and 22 of FIR 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.9880/2025 was dismissed as not

pressed vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this Court, with a

liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of the statement

of Seizure Officer. Statement of Seizure Officer has already been

recorded, hence, this second application for bail has been filed.

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:38:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11636] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2903/2026]

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and

fabricated. He submits that the petitioner is about 25 years of age

and has no concern with the alleged recovery as the contraband was

not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this

Court toward statement of Seizure Officer (PW-1) and submitted

that as per the statement of Seizure Officer, the contraband was

recovered from the place which does not belong to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the Seizure Officer himself admitted

that place in question does not belong to the petitioner and there

was no name plate affixed there. The relevant portion of the

statement of Seizure Officer reads as under:-

";g dguk lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh O;fDrxr ryk"kh ds nkSjku mlds "kjhj ij igus gq, diM+sa o mlds pSrU; dCts ls dksbZ voS/k eknd inkFkZ dh cjkenxh ugha gqbZ FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs }kjk ,oa gekjs tkCrs }kjk vkjksih dks mldh jgoklh <k.kh esa eknd inkFkZ fNikrs gq, ugha ns[kk x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd edku ds ftl dejsa ls cjkenxh dh xbZ] ml dejs esa eqds"k ds uke ds crZu] useIysV vkfn ugha feysA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ftl jgoklh ?kj dh ryk"kh yh xbZ] ml ?kj ds lnL;ksa dh mifLFkfr ckcr cjkenxh ,oa tCrh ds nkSjku cuk;s x;s nLrkostksa ij muds gLrk{kj ugh gS rFkk mifLFkfr ckcr fdlh O;fDr dk o.kZu ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ryk"kh ls iwoZ jgoklh <k.kh eqds"k dh gksus ckcr dksbZ tkap ugha dh xbZA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ryk"kh ls iwoZ iVokjh dks ryc dj vfHk;qDr eqds"k dh <k.kh gksus dh lR;kiu dh fjiksVZ dh QnZ ugha cuk;h FkhA ;g dguk lfg gS fd cjkenxh okyh <k.kh vfHk;qDr ds pSrU; dCts o LokfeRo dk gks] bl ckcr ryk"kh ls iwoZ ,oa ckn esa xzke iapk;r ,oa ljiap dh fjiksVZ ;k fdlh ljdkjh deZpkjh ls fjiksVZ ysdj <k.kh dh rLnhd ugha dh xbZ] uk gh LokfeRo laca/kh dksbZ nLrkost esjs }kjk izkIr fd;s x;s] vt[kqn dgk fd vkbZvks us ckn esa dh gksxh rks esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vkjksih ek= 21 o'kZ dk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd cjkenxhLFky okyk edku vfHk;qDr ds LokfeRo dk gks ;k mlds fdjk;s dk gks] ,slk dksbZ HkkM+k fpV~Bh fdjk;kukek ;k dksbZ LokfEkRo laca/kh nLrkost eSaus ugha fy;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ftl jgoklh ?kj dh ryk"kh yh xbZ ml jgoklh ?kj esa eqds"k LFkk;h :i ls ;k vLFkkbZ :i ls fuokl djrk gks] ml laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ryk"kh ls iwoZ ,oa eq[kfcj dh lwpuk ds ckn esjs }kjk izkIr ugha fd;k] vt[kqn dgk fd ekSds ij ekSf[kd tkudkjh izkIr dh xbZ Fkh ftl ij eqds"k vius ifjokj lfgr blh ?kj esa jguk ik;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd mDRk ekSf[kd tkudkjh fdlls izkIr dh xbZ] bldk dksbZ vadu fdlh QnZ esa ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eq[kfcj dh lwpuk dk ekSds ij tkus ls igys dksbZ lR;kiu ugha djok;k x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr eqds"k ds fdrus nksLr ;k fdrus yksx mlls jaft"k j[krs gSa ml laca/k esa Hkh esja }kjk lR;kiu ugha djok;k x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ftl jgoklh <k.kh esa eSa x;k] ml <k.kh esa fdrus O;fDr la;qDr :i ls

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:38:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11636] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2903/2026]

fuokljr gS ;k dCTkk/kkjh gS] esjs }kjk ,slh tkap ryk"kh ls iwoZ ;k ckn esa ugha dh xbZA"

It is further submitted that the recovery of the alleged

contraband is stated to have been effected on 25.10.2024,

whereas the samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination

only on 10.12.2024, resulting in an unaccounted delay of

approximately 45 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 in the evening hours 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 18

prosecution witnesses, the statement of only 01 witnesses have

been examined 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 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.

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:38:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11636] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2903/2026]

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:

"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

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:38:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11636] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2903/2026]

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.

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

25.10.2024, i.e. for about 1 year 4 months 16 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. 25 years

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,

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

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

(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:38:58 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11636] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2903/2026]

recovery; the challan has already been filed; the petitioner has

remained in custody since 25.10.2024, i.e. for about 1 year 4

months 16 days as on today; the petitioner has no previous

criminal antecedents 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.

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.