[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Uday Lal Alias Uda Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14035) on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14035]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2902/2026
Uday Lal Alias Uda Gurjar S/o Ratan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 47
Years, Resident Of Pemakheda, Police Station Vijaypur, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjul Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/03/2026
1. The instant second 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 Bijapur
3. District Chhittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sec.8/15,29 of the NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any Sec. 109 of BNS
The 1st application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e S.B
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14817/2025 was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 06.12.2025 passed by this court,
with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:51:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14035] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2902/2026]
recording the statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first
bail application, the statement of Seizure Officer-PW-01 Pannalal
has been recorded. Hence, this second application for bail has
been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case as he was arrested
only on the basis of statements of co-accused, and no recovery has
been effected from the conscious possession of the present
petitioner. It is further submitted that alleged recovery of
contraband was stated to be affected on 06.11.2024 whereas
same were sent for the FSL on 14.11.2024, after an inordinate
and unjustified delay of 7 days. 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. Additionally, it is contended that as
per the averments made in the FIR, the alleged recovery was
effected at 02:05 A.M., and in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act, prior authorization from the competent authority is
mandatory for conducting search and seizure at this hour.
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this
Court towards the statement of Seizure Officer, recorded before
the learned trial Court, wherein the said officer has himself
admitted that there was non-compliance of necessary procedures
under NDPS Act. The relevant relevant portion is reproduced
hereinbelow:
ßbl izdj.k esa eSa tCrh vf/kdkjh gwaA ;g lgh gS fd 52, dh
dk;Zokgh ds le; izdj.k ds vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh mifLFkr ugha FksaA 52,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:51:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14035] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2902/2026]
dh dk;Zokgh ds QksVksxzkQ f[kpus ds fy;s QksVksxzkQj dks cqyk;k x;k
FkkA ;g lgh gS fd esjs }kjk QksVksxzkQj ls /kkjk 63¼4½¼lh½ Hkkjrh;
lk{; vf/kfu;e dk izek.k i= ugha fy;k x;kA QksVksxzkQj dk uke
vkt ;kn ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd 52, ds QksVksxzkQ ij U;kf;d
eftLVªsV esjs o vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj o lhy ugha gSA ;g lgh
gS fd izn'kZ ih- 33 yxk;r 277 rd igpku ds laca/k esa esjk] vuqla/kku
vf/kdkjh o U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc dk QksVks layXu ugha gSA ;g lgh
gS fd mDr dk;Zokgh U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc o esjs }kjk dh xbZ bl
ckr izn'kZ ih- 33 yxk;r 277 esa mudk o esjk QksVksxzkQ nf'kZr ugha
gSA 52, dh dk;Zokgh Fkkus ij dh xbZ FkhA fpVs U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc
ds funsZ'ku esa muds jhMj }kjk Vkbi dh xbZ FkhA ;g lgh gS fd fpVks
ij U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc ds jhMj ds gLrk{kj ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd
uewuk lsaiy vkfVZdy 1 yxk;r 55 ,Q,l,y esa x, Fks] muds }kjk
ckn tkap iqu% lhy fd;k x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd /kkjk 52, dh
dk;Zokgh esa dksbZ Lora= ekSrchj mifLFkr ugha FksA ;g lgh gS fd
vkfVZdyks dh fpVks ij le; dk vadu ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd lHkh
vkfVZdyks ij uk rks vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dh lhy gS uk gh muds
gLrk{kj gSA ;g lgh gS fd vnkyr esa is'k vkfVZdyksa ds eqag ij yxh
lhy dks [kksydj dksbZ vo'ks"k mlesa Hkjk tk, rks muij yxh
fpVs ;Fkkor jgsxhA /kkjk 52, ds lsaiy U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc ds
funsZ'ku esa mifLFkr tkCrk dh enn ls fudkys x, FksA
...;g lgh gS fd fLoQ~V dkj ls ,sls dksbZ Lora= izR;{k ;k vizR;{k
lk{; ugha feys tks ykyflag o mn;yky ls laca/k LFkkfir djrs gksA
gesa ns[kdj MksMkpqjk okys okgu us djhc 20 QhV igys okgu dks
jksddj pkyd o [kyklh lkbZM esa cSBk O;fDr mrjdj Qk;fjax djrs
gq, taxy dh rjQ Hkkxs Fks] chp esa csBs O;fDr dks geusa idM+ fy;k
FkkA Hkkxus okys O;fDr dks eSa Lo;a ugha igpkurk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd
fidvt okgu ls ,sls dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; cjken ugha gq, tks fidvi
ls eqyfte dk laca/k LFkkfir dj lds ;k tks cjken'kqnk MksMkpqjk dk
mn;yky o ykyflag ls laca/k LFkkfir djrs gks Lo;a dgk fd ykyflag
dks rks geus eksds ij idM+ fy;k FkkA fidvi xkM+h dh ryk'kh ls iwoZ
geusa mudks oS/kkfud vf/kdkj crk, FksA ;g lgh gS fd MksMkpqjk okys
okgu dh ryk'kh ls iwoZ geusa /kkjk 42¼1½ ijarqd ds rgr jkf=dkyhu
ryk'kh okjaV ckcr ipkZ cukdj mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ugha HkstkAÞ
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 also relied upon the
judgment 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.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:51:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14035] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2902/2026]
It is further submitted that co-accused kana @ Kanhaiya Lal,
Bhanwar Lal and Dinesh have already been enlarged on bail by
this court vide order dated 12.07.2025 and 12.11.2025 passed in
S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5971/2025 and S.B
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12939/2025 and 9238/2025
respectively.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents, challan has already been filed and the petitioner is in
custody since 13.02.2025, i.e. for about one year and one month
as on today; he trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long
time to conclude as out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, the
statement of only one witness; that is of Seizure Officer; has been
recorded till date, 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 applications and submitted that the contraband
recovered in this case is in commercial quantity, however, he is
not in a position to refute the fact that out of total 27 prosecution
witnesses, statement of only one witness have been recorded and
the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of about 7
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
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:51:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14035] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2902/2026]
recovery; the challan has already been filed; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 13.02.2025, i.e. for about 1 year and
one month as on today; and since only one witness has been
examined out of 27; 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 of 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 applicant 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 their 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
203-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:51:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
