[2025:RJ-JD:53361]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9931/2025 Dinesh S/o Sonaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Goro Ki Dhani, Doli Kalla, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra Rajasthan.

(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

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

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

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

09/12/2025 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 101/2024

2. Police Station Jhanwar

3. District Jodhpur City West

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

5. Offences added, if any -

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He further submits that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner was apprehended along with the contraband (Poppy Husk weighing

100.200 kilograms), which is stated to have been above commercial quantity.

It is further submitted that recovery of alleged contraband was stated to be affected on 11.08.2024, whereas, samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 20.09.2024, resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 40 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 18 prosecution witnesses, statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded 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 daytime 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. The Seizure Officer during his statement recorded before the learned trial Court has also admitted that these mandatory requirements were not complied with in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 5732/2025) decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the delay and lack of substantive evidence.

It is further submitted that the challan has already been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2024 i.e. about 1 year, 3 months and 28 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.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act; the contraband recovered in this matter is above the commercial quantity; and the crime committed in the present case is against the society. However, he is not in a position to refute the fact that the Seizure Officer has admitted in his court statement that he has not informed higher authorities; the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate delay of 40 days; and out of total 18 prosecution witnesses, statements of only 3 witnesses have been recorded till date.

In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged antecedent pertains prior to the year 2024.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on record; considering Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988, which mandates that samples