[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ghanshyam Singh Alias Bharat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11627) on 10 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:11627]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 864/2026
Ghanshyam Singh Alias Bharat Singh S/o Himmat Singh
Chundawat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Bhomiya Ji Ka
Badaiya,police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan
(Lodged In District Jail,bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
10/03/2026
These 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 Karoi
3. District Bhilwara
4. Offences alleged in the Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS Act
FIR
5. Offences added, if any -
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14680/2025 was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court,
however, liberty was granted to file afresh after filing of challan. It
is submitted that now, the challan has been filed. Hence, this
second application for bail has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:39:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11627] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-864/2026]
Learned counsel further submits that, as per the prosecution's
case, a police constable received information that a Scorpio
vehicle bearing a Gujarat registration number was involved in the
transportation of illegal narcotic contraband, namely poppy husk.
Acting upon the said information, the vehicle was identified,
intercepted, and subjected to search, during which the alleged
narcotic contraband was recovered from the said vehicle. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rules 13 & 14
of the rules of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
(Seizure, Storage, Sampling, and Disposal) Rules, 2022
(hereinafter referred to as the '2022 Rules'), wherein it is
mandated that the concerned Seizure Officer is required to
undertake immediate sampling and ensure the prompt dispatch of
the recovered narcotic contraband in accordance with the
prescribed procedure. The relevant rules of 2022 Rules are
reproduced herein below :-
"13. Despatch of sample for testing. -
(1) The samples after being certified by the Magistrate shall be
sent directly to any one of the jurisdictional laboratories of
Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Central Forensic Science
Laboratory or State Forensic Science Laboratory, as the case
may be, for chemical analysis without any delay.
(2) The samples of seized drugs or substances shall be
despatched to the jurisdictional laboratories under the cover of
the Test Memo, which shall be prepared in triplicate, in Form-6.
(3) The original and duplicate of the Test Memo shall be sent to
the jurisdictional laboratory alongwith the samples and the
triplicate shall be retained in the case file of the seizing officer.
14. Expeditious Test.- The chemical laboratory shall submit its
report to the court of Magistrate with a copy to the investigating
officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the sample.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:39:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11627] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-864/2026]
Provided that where quantitative analysis requires longer
time, the results of the qualitative test shall be dispatched to the
court of Magistrate with a copy to investigating officer within
the said time limit on the original copy of the Test Memo and in
the next fifteen days the result of quantitative test shall also be
indicated on the duplicate Test Memo and sent to the court of
Magistrate with a copy to the investigating officer."
It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband
was stated to be affected on 08.07.2025, whereas, samples were
forwarded to the FSL for examination on 26.08.2025, resulting in
an unaccounted delay of approximately 1 month and 18 days,
which is in contravention of Clause 1.13 of Standing Order
No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 wherein it is mandated that samples
drawn ought to have been sent for FSL examination within 72
hours from recovery. It is additionally contended that as per
averments in the FIR, alleged recovery was effected in the
morning 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance
on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.4169/2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
cumulative effect of these infirmities demonstrates a prima facie
non-compliance with the mandatory NDPS Rules, 2022, which
were enacted to precisely avoid such arbitrariness and to ensure
that the process of seizure and sampling remains free from doubt.
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:39:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11627] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-864/2026]
The absence of Magistrate-certified sampling and the admissions
of key prosecution witnesses collectively erode the sanctity of the
alleged recovery and cast a serious shadow on the prosecution
case at this stage.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chhunna Alias Mehtab versus
State of M.P. passed in Criminal Appeal No.727 of 2001 and
Muhammad Sharif versus State of M.P. passed in Criminal
Appeal No.1003 of 2001 decided on 07.08.2002.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioner has been in custody since 08.07.2025, i.e. for
about 08 months and 02 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. He
further submits that there is one criminal antecedent of similar
nature against the petitioner.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
in that case the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail with
the observation that the contraband recovered is below the
commercial quantity.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:39:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11627] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-864/2026]
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
as well as Rules 13 & 14 of the 2022 Rules; the challan has
already been filed; the petitioner has remained in custody since
08.07.2025, i.e. for about 08 months and 02 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
68-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 10/03/2026 at 06:39:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
