[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radheshyam vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 March, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3585/2026
1. Radheshyam S/o Rama Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o B
Isalpur,police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan (Lodged In Sub Jail,jaitaran)
2. Ashok S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Choupsani Charna Rampura, Police Station
Mathaniya,district Jodhpur, Rajasthan At Present R/o
Thakur Shambhudan Nagar, Mathaniya, Police Station
Mathaniya, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Lodged In Sub
Jail, Jaitaran)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.Ray Bishnoi.
Mr. Hemant Jangir.
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 the petitioners who have 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 Sendra
3. District Pali
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
FIR
5. Offences added, if any -
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:00:20 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-3585/2026]
The 1st bail applications filed on behalf of petitioners i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10348/2025 and 10349/2025
were dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed by this Court
with the liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail application after
recording the statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first
bail applications, the statement of Seizure Officer, has been
recorded. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that
the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and
fabricated. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
that as per the prosecution case, on 29.09.2024 at about 01:30
PM, while on patrol duty, police party reached Kalabad Tiraha. At
that time, a white Swift car bearing registration No. RJ-14-CU-
2567 was seen coming at a high speed from the side of Beawar.
Upon being signalled to stop, the driver allegedly turned the
vehicle towards Sendra town and attempted to flee, whereupon
the police party chased the vehicle. During the chase, the vehicle
went ahead at a very high speed and eventually collided with
cement blocks on the roadside, resulting in damage to the tyre
and rim.
It is further alleged that upon reaching the spot and making
enquiries, the driver disclosed his name as Petitioner No.1-
Radheshyam, and the person sitting on the co-passenger seat
disclosed his name as Petitioner No.2-Ashok. Thereafter, a search
of the vehicle was conducted, and a total of 146.740 kg of doda
post, packed in eight bags, was recovered without any valid
license.
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:00:20 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-3585/2026]
It is further submitted that alleged recovery of contraband
was stated to be affected on 29.09.2024 whereas same were sent
for the FSL on 08.10.2024, after an inordinate and unjustified
delay of 9 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 for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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.
It is further submitted that co-accused petitioner No.1
Radhey Shyam has one previous antecedent, wherein he was
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.07.2022 passed
in in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7982/2021 and
Petitioner No.2 has no previous antecedents.
It is also submitted that the challan has already been filed
and the petitioners are in custody since 29.09.2024, i.e. for about
1 year, 5 months, and 26 days as on today; the trial of the case is
likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude as out of total 19
prosecution witnesses, the statement of only one witness; that is
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:00:20 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-3585/2026]
of Seizure Officer; has been recorded till date, therefore, further
incarceration of the petitioners 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 19 prosecution
witnesses, statement of only one witness have been recorded and
the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of about 9
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
recovery; the challan has already been filed; the petitioners have
remained in custody since 29.09.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 5
months, and 26 days as on today; and since only one witness has
been examined out of 19; 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
petitioners on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioners as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:00:20 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-3585/2026]
in any other case, provided each of them furnish 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 petitioners 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 them by this Court. The prosecution,
in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application
seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners today by this
Court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
230-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 05:00:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
