[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ladhu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12690) on 17 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:12690]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1763/2026
Ladhu Singh S/o Sujan Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Mogerai
Chochra, Tehsil And Police Station Shiv, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged In District Jail Barmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradhuman Singh Rajpurohit
Mr. Ram Singh Rajuurohit
Mr. Hem Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
17/03/2026
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 Shiv
3. District Barmer
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/15 and 25 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.10219/2025 was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Court,
with a liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:47:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12690] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1763/2026]
sheet. The Charge-sheet has already been recorded, hence, this
second application for bail has been filed.
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 61 years of age
and has no concern with the alleged recovery. There is no previous
antecedents against the petitioner. It is further submitted that after
thorough investigation, conclusion of investigation was filed and as
per conclusion, the petitioner has rented out the premises to co-
accused Chutar Singh who used the said premise for keeping the
illegal doda post after procuring the same with the help of co-
accused Bhom Singh. The relevant portion of the conclusion of
investigation reads as under:-
"प्रकरण में अब तक के अन्वेषण से मु ल्जिम चुतरसिंह पुत्र अभयसिंह जाति
राजपु त निवासी पाबुसर चोचरा पु लिस थाना शिव जिला बाडमेर के द्वारा
अवैध डोडा पोस्त को अपने साथी मुल्जिम भोमसिंह राजपुत के साथ
मिलकर लाकर अपने कब्जे में रखा जाकर उक्त डोडा पोस्त को लाधू सिंह
से एक कमरा को किराये पर लिया जाकर उक्त डोडा पोस्त को उक्त कमरे
में छिपाकर रखा हुआ बरामद होने से मुल्जिम चुतरसिं ह के विरूध जुर्म धारा
8/15,29 एनडीपीएस एक्ट का अपराध बाखुबी प्रमाणित पाया गया है ।
मुल्जिम चुतरसिंह के दे खने थाना हाजा के रिकोर्ड से पूर्व में कोई प्रकरण
दर्ज होना नहीं पाया गया है । प्रकरण में मु ल्जिम चुतरसिंह से पुछताछ व
अन्वेषण पूर्ण किया जाकर उसको पे श अदालत किया जाकर जेसी करवाया
गया, जो जो न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में चल रहा है । इसी प्रकार प्रकरण में पू र्व में
गिरफतारसुदा मुल्जिम लाधू सिंह दिनां क 31.07.2025 से गिरफतार होकर
न्यायिक अभिरक्षा में चल रहा है , तथा मुल्जिम भोमसिंह वक्त घटना से
फरार चल रहा है , जिसकी तलाश पतां रसी जारी है "
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-
accused Chutar Singh has already been enlarged on bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026,
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1762/2026.
It is further submitted that the recovery of the alleged
contraband is stated to have been effected on 17.05.2024,
whereas the samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:47:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12690] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-1763/2026]
only on 27.05.2024, resulting in an unaccounted delay of
approximately 10 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.
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 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 challan has already been filed
and the petitioner has been in custody since 31.07.2025. The trial
of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude;
therefore, looking to the age of petitioner i.e. 61 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, the
crime is against the society and looking to the present scenario,
where the cases of NDPS are increasing day by day, the petitioner
may not be enlarged on bail.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:47:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12690] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1763/2026]
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; co-accused Chutar
Singh has already been enlarged on bail; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 31.07.2025; the petitioner has no
criminal antecedents and the trial of the case will take significant
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
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:47:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12690] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-1763/2026]
seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this
Court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
185-Ramesh/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:47:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
