[2025:RJ-JD:52998]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3936/2025 Madhulal S/o Khuma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kesarkhedi, P.s. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Raj) (Presently Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SK Bhati.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/12/2025 This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 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

1. FIR Number 343/2022

2. Police Station Kapasan

3. District Chittorgarh

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act

5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. The present petitioner was stated to be driver of the Mini Truck, from which recovery of illegal narcotic contraband (Poppy Husk weighing 6 quintals and 15 kilograms) is stated to have been recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband was stated to be affected on 30.10.2022, whereas, samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 08.11.2022, resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 09 days. Learned counsel argues that such an unexplained lapse creates a reasonable possibility of tampering with the samples, which cannot be ruled out. 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.

It is also submitted that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded before the trial Court and the pace of the trial is very slow. It is additionally contended that as per averments in the FIR, alleged recovery was effected in the morning and as per provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is mandatory to obtain prior authorization from a competent authority for search and seizure. These mandatory requirements, however, were not complied with in the present case.

It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 30.10.2022 i.e. about 3 years, 1 month & 6 days and the further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time to conclude, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (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 Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail, it has been observed as under:

“9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also p