Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 565

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
RAJVINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CRLMB / 1265 / 2025

Advocates:
Mr. Amit Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar Pareek for Mr. D.S. Thind, Mr. K.S. Nahar, Spl. PP

Prolonged judicial custody and lack of prosecution witness examination justify granting bail under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:
(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8

(C), 21, and 29 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested in connection with serious drug offences and has been in judicial custody for over 3 years and 7 months - No prosecution witnesses examined to date - Co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances - Court finds no reason to deny bail - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

(B) Judicial Custody - Length of custody and delay in trial - The court considers the prolonged judicial custody and lack of progress in the trial as significant factors in granting bail. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 12.06.2021 for offences under the NDPS Act, with no prosecution witnesses examined in over 3 years. The co-accused was granted bail on similar grounds.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioner’s case is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused, and the delay in trial is not attributable to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues were the length of judicial custody, the lack of examination of prosecution witnesses, and the comparison with the co-accused's bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prolonged judicial custody and lack of progress in the trial warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing that the trial court should not be prejudiced by the observations made in the bail application.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.VIII(IO)08/NCB/JZU/2021 registered at Police Station NCB, Jodhpur, for offences under Section 8(C), 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused person namely Sukhpreet Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15090/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 on the ground that he is in judicial custody since 12.06.2021 for last more than 3 years and 7 months and till date out of total 9 cited prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witnesses has been examined before competent Criminal Court.

3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.06.2021; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order dated 24.01.2025is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 03.06.2021, a team of NCB, Jodhpur submitted a complaint stating that they had recovered heroine weighing 56.501 Kgs. in total 54 packets. On the basis of the above, the present petitioner was arrested.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.06.2021. He further submitted that till date, out of total 9 cited prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witnesses has been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since last more than 3 years 7 months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.

On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last more than 3 years 7 months, out of total 9 cited prosecution witnesses, not even a single prosecution witnesses has been examined till date.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for last more than 3 years 7 months and out of total 9 cited prosecution witne

Click Here to Read the rest of this document