Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2529
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Mangi Lal S/o Ram Lal Jat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9543 of 2025, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 6468 of 2025
Decided On : 28-10-2025
For the Appellants : Ashok Khillery, Mahipal Vishnoi
For the Respondent: N.S. Chandawat
Prolonged detention without corroborative evidence is unconstitutional, emphasizing the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial in drug-related offenses.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act - Sections 8/15, 8/25, 8/29, and 29 - The validity of bail applications under Section 439 CrPC by the accused for alleged involvement in drug trafficking - Accused had been detained without strong evidence, leading to prolonged incarceration contrary to the principles of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 10, 11)
(B) Bail considerations - The court emphasized that the prosecution's case needs corroborative evidence for extended detention - Merely confining individuals based on co-accused statements lacks sufficiency without tangible evidence. (Paras 6.1, 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in drug-related offenses based on minimal evidence and conjectures while they had been in custody for over one year. The trial's slow progress indicates punitive rather than preventive detention.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence for prolonged detention, especially in light of minimal examination of prosecution witnesses. Both petitioners were granted bail, based on their lack of presence at the crime scene and absence of incriminating evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the basis for accusations against the petitioners, the lack of independent evidence supporting their alleged crimes, and the right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of sufficient evidence to justify continued detention was central to the court's decision, highlighting that personal liberty must be upheld within constitutional guarantees.
Result: Bail applications allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused were implicated based on minimal evidence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for bail highlight lack of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observes evidence insufficient for detention. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. interpretation of bail provisions under ndps act emphasized. (Para 10) |
| 5. bail granted based on lack of substantive evidence. (Para 11) |
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 30/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Nimbahera Sadar |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Sections 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM2ndB No.9543/2025) | 16.07.2025 |
| 6.A | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLM3rdB No.6468/2025) | 28.04.2025 |
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2024, the Station House Officer, Sadar Nimbahera, along with the police team, while conducting naka-bandi at Ahirpura border, intercepted a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-Z1117 coming from Neemuch. The said truck was being driven by Mukesh Garg. Upon conducting a lawful search of the vehicle in his presence, a total of 187 plastic bags containing approximately 36 quintals, 56 kilograms, and 200 grams of illegal opium (Doda Chura) were recovered.
2.1. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the present accused, Mangilal and Bhura Lal were actively involved in the illegal purchase, sale, and trafficking of the aforesaid contraband. Consequently, on the basis of material collected during investigation, an offence under Sections 8 /29 of the NDPS Act was found established against them, and a charge-sheet was accordingly filed before the competent court.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that they are arrested since 10.02.2024 & 30.01.2024 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however they were not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Upon a meticulous scrutiny of the record, it transpires that the petitioners have been under incarceration since 2024. Their implication in the present case rests solely upon the statement of a co-accused, which, in the absence of any independent corroborative material, constitutes a weak and tenuous piece of evidence. It is significant to note that the petitioners were neither apprehended at the scene of occurrence nor has any incriminating recovery been effected from their conscious possession. Consequently, the allegation of their complicity in the alleged transportation of contraband appears to be founded merely on conjecture and unsubstantiated assertion, devoid of any cogent evidentiary basis.
6.1 The Court further observes that despite the considerable lapse of time, the trial has witnessed minimal progress. Though charges have been framed and proceedings have formally commenced, out of a total of twenty-seven witnesses cited by the prosecution, only one witness has been examined till date. In such circumstances, the petitioners’ continued detention partakes the character of punitive pre-trial incarceration rather than preventive custody, which stands proscribed in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently underscored that the right to a speedy trial is an integral face
