[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kaluram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14410) on 27 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14410]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODH-
PUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3722/2026
Kaluram S/o Udayram Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Amba
Beri,police Station Bijaypur,district Chittorgarh,rajasthan (Lodged
In District Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
27/03/2026
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by 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 Kotwali
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act &
345 of BNS
5. Offences added, if any
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7704/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the
statement of Seizure Officer. Now the statement of Seizure Officer
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14410] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3722/2026]
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. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was copassanger of the vehicle from
which the contraband was recovered whereas Chhotu Singh was
the driver and the alleged recovery of contraband was stated to be
affected on 28.11.2024 whereas same were sent for the FSL on
13.01.2025, after an inordinate and unjustified delay of 45 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.
Learned counsel further submits that the Seizure Officer, in
his statement recorded before the learned Trial Court, has also
admitted that the sample was sent to the FSL after a delay.
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 27/03/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14410] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3722/2026]
It is further submitted by learned counsel that out of total 21
prosecution witnesses, statement of only 2 witness have been
recorded and the pace of the trial is very slow.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been
filed; petitioner has no previous antecedents and the petitioner is
in custody since 28.11.2024; i.e. 1 year, 3 months and 27 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 applications and submitted that the petitioner
was co-passenger of the vehicle from which the contraband was
recovered therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. However, he
is not in a position to refute the fact that the FSL samples were
sent after an inordinate delay of about 45 days and that the
petitioner has no previous criminal antecedent.
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; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 28.11.2024, i.e. 1 year, 3 months and
27 days as on today; and petitioner does not have any previous
antecedent; only two witness has been examined out of 21 and
that the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to conclude;
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14410] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3722/2026]
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 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.
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
91-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 04:26:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
