Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 283
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Dinesh, S/o Bhagwan Lal Jat - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. 4th Bail Application No. 4047 of 2026
Decided On : 27-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Personal Liberty
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail - Statutory restrictions - While statutory conditions impose a heightened threshold for bail, they cannot be interpreted as a mandate for perpetual detention - Constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial under Article 21 prevail over restrictive statutory provisions when proceedings face inordinate and indefinite delay. (Paras 5.11, 5.12, 5.13)
(C) Trial - Delay in proceedings - Where judicial proceedings are effectively reset due to supplementary investigations and the joinder of additional parties, the resulting uncertainty in the timeline for completing the trial violates the accused's right to a fair and speedy process. (Paras 5.5, 5.15, 5.16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was taken into custody on drug-related charges. After more than three years in detention with limited progress in the examination of witnesses, the investigation agency conducted further proceedings, leading to the inclusion of new suspects and a consolidation of cases. This change necessitated a functional restart of the trial, making the date of conclusion indeterminate.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that when an accused has suffered prolonged incarceration without a likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable timeframe, the detention ceases to be preventive and transforms into punitive, pre-conviction punishment. The court emphasized that statutory barriers to bail cannot override the fundamental constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Issues: Whether the continued detention of an accused in the face of structural trial delays, supplementary investigations, and the absence of a foreseeable conclusion date justifies the relaxation of statutory bail limitations under the constitutional framework.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to a speedy trial is an inseparable facet of the constitutional right to personal liberty. When procedural stagnation and excessive delays occur, such that the trial is unlikely to conclude in a reasonable time, the constitutional imperative must take precedence over stringent statutory conditions, necessitating the release of the accused on bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For the Respondent: Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history and procedural history of the bail application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. summary of conflicting party contentions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evaluation of trial stagnation and violation of speedy trial rights. (Para 5) |
| 4. operative order of the court granting bail. (Para 6) |
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 06.03.2023, Shri Om Singh, Station House Officer of Police Station Mandafiya, while accompanied by the police personnel, was conducting a naka- bandi operation near the Referral Hospital. During the course of such checking, a motorcycle without registration number was noticed approaching from the direction of Bhadsoda and was accordingly intercepted.
2.1. Upon being stopped, the rider disclosed his identity as Dinesh Jat. Entertaining suspicion, the police party, in the presence of independent motbirs, undertook his search in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. During such search, five plastic packets containing, in aggregate, 10 kilograms and 300 grams of illicit opium, along with the packing material, were allegedly recovered from the bag carried by the accused.
2.2. Consequent upon the aforesaid recovery, an FIR came to be registered and investigation was set into motion. Upon culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid before the competent court against accused Dinesh Jat for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The record further reveals that the accused was arrested on 07.03.2023 and has remained in judicial custody since then. It is also borne out that three earlier bail applications preferred on his behalf had already been dismissed. Thereafter, during the course of trial, statements of prosecution witnesses PW-05 Arvind and PW-06 Khemaram came to be recorded. Hence, the instant application for bail.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 07.03.2023, no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his 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-petitioner and he has 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. Upon hearing the submissions advanced by both sides and upon perusal of the material placed on record, the following emerges for consideration:
5.1. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since 07.03.2023 and has thus undergone incarceration for a period exceeding three years. His earlier three applications seeking regular bail came to be rejected by this Court, having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusation, the quantity of contraband allegedly recovered, and the statutory rigours engrafted under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. While dismissing the third bail application, being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6725/2025, vide order dated 04.12.2025, this Court had, however, directed the learned trial Court to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial with promptitude.
5.2. The present successive application, however, rests upon a distinct and supervening circumstance, namely, that the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy, fair and meaningful trial, which inheres in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, now stands seriously jeopardised on account of the inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings. The grievance projected is not merely of prolonged custody, but of custody bereft of any p
