[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmb / 11909U / 2026Raju Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20757) on 1 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20757]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5316/2026
Raju Ram S/o Purkha Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Suthagoi,
Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore. (At Present Lodged At Distt.
Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghunath Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
01/05/2026
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 Pindwara
3. District Sirohi
4. Offences alleged in the Under Section 8/15 of NDPS
FIR Act
5. Offences added, if any Under Section 8/29 of NDPS
Act
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6260/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the
statement of Investigating Officer. The statement of Investigating
Officer has been recorded as PW-1. Hence, this second application.
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:46:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20757] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5316/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case and has no direct
connection with the main accused, namely Dinesh and Hanuman,
from whom the contraband was allegedly recovered. It is further
submitted that, four months prior to the alleged incident, there
was only a single transaction between the petitioner and the said
accused.
Learned counsel further contends that the Investigating
Officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted that there are no
substantial call detail records linking the petitioner with the main
accused, except for a solitary call of short duration not exceeding
37 seconds. It is also submitted that the petitioner was arrested
after a delay of 1 year and 3 months from the date of the alleged
incident, which fact has also been admitted by the Investigating
Officer.
The relevant portion of the statement of the Investigating
Officer is reproduced hereinbelow:
"जिरह द्वारा अभियुक्त राजूराम की ओर से अधिवक्ता श्री
अभिमन्यू सिंह :- यह बात सही है कि प्रकरण से पू र्व मुलजिम
राजुराम के खाते से दिनेश के खाते में मात्र एक बार 5000 रूपये
का लेनदे न हुआ। यह बात सही है कि उक्त लेनदे न जो मुलजिमानों
के बीच हुआ वो जब्ती के लगभग 04 माह पू र्व का था। यह बात सही
है कि माल जब्ती के बाद में मुलजिमान के मध्य दू सरे ट्र ान्सेक्शन हुए
वो बाद में हुए माल जब्ती के पू र्व सिर्फ एक बार ही हुआ। जब्तशुदा
माल क्या किमत का होगा में नहीं बता सकता। दिनां क
08.02.2025 को जो 1000 रूपये का टें शेक्शन बताया है वो
चार्जशीट में गलती से लिखा है जो ट्र ान्सेक्शन दिनां क 08.02.2024
का है , जो त्रुटीवश 2024 की जगह 2025 हो गया। यह बात सही है
कि मुलजिम राजु का बैं क स्टे टमेंट मेरे द्वारा नहीं लिया गया था। मैंने
बैं क मेनेजर के बयान नहीं लिए। यह बात सही है कि मैंने स्टे टमेंट
जारी करने वाले के भी बयान नहीं लिया। यह बात सही है कि
मुलजिम राजु से माल की बरामदगी नहीं की है । मुलजिम राजुराम के
होटल से संबंधित कोई दस्तावेज मैंने नहीं लिए और ना ही होटल से
संबंधित कोई अनुसंधान नहीं किया अजखु द कहा कि आस पास लोगों
से पूछताछ की थी। यह बात सही है मुलजिम को होटल से दस्तयाब
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:46:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20757] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5316/2026]
कर थाने लाकर गिरफतारी की फर्द बनाई थी। यह बात सही है कि
मुलजिम की गिरफतारी घटना के सवा साल बाद की है । यह बात
सही है कि पत्रावली पर मुलजिमान के मध्य वॉटसअप कॉल से
संबंधित कोई स्कीनशॉट या कोई डिटे ल नहीं है । यह बात सही हे कि
मुलजिम दिनेश के खाते में मुलजिम राजु के अलावा भी कई सारे
ट्र ान्सेक्शन के मार्फ त पैसे आए हुए है । यह बात सही है कि मुलजिम
दिनेश के खाते में जब्ती से 10 दिन पू र्व तक कोई लेनदे न मुलजिम
राजुराम के मार्फ त नहीं हुआ था। यह बात सही है कि मुलजिम राजू
एवं दिनेश के मध्य एक बार दिनां क 03.08.2023 को मात्र 37
से कन्ड बात हो रखी है इसके अलावा कोई अन्य कॉल या बातचीत
नहीं हो रखी है ।...."
It is additionally submitted that the petitioner has two
criminal antecedents of a similar nature, both involving recovery
of contraband below commercial quantity, in which he has already
been granted bail. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since
08.02.2025, i.e., for a period of 1 year, 2 months, and 23 days as
of today. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and only one
out of sixteen prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. It
is further contended that the trial is likely to take a considerable
period of time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may be
granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. However, he is not in a position to
dispute the fact that, as per the cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer, four months prior to the alleged incident,
there was only a single transaction between the petitioner and the
said accused, along with a solitary call of duration not exceeding
37 seconds.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; considering the statement of Investigating
Officer recorded as PW-1, the fact that the chargesheet has
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:46:16 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20757] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5316/2026]
already been filed; the petitioner is in judicial custody since
08.02.2025 (1 year, 2 months, and 23 days as on today) and the
trial of the case will take significant 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
210-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 10:46:16 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
