[2026:RJ-JD:4521]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 654/2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Deva Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ram Nagar Mandla Kalla Police Station Phalodi District Phalodi Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Suratgarh)

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

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

23/01/2026 The instant 2^nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of 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:

The 1^st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7325/2025 was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of Seizure Officer, P.W. 1 - Satish Kumar has been recorded. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated. He further submits that, as per the prosecution story, contraband poppy straw including eight plastic bags (weighing 144.30kg), which is stated to be above commercial quantity, was recovered in this case.

It is further submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband is stated to have been effected on 19.11.2024, whereas the samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 21.01.2025, resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 63 days. From the statement of Seizure Officer - Satish Kumar (P.W.1), it has been established that mandatory requirements under the NDPS Act were not complied with in the present case and that proceedings under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act were undertaken after inordinate delay of 53 days. Learned counsel argues that such an unexplained lapse occurred on the part of the concerned Seizure Officer, as the samples were sent to the FSL after an inordinate and unjustified delay. 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 further contended that as per averments contained in the FIR, alleged recovery was effected during night hours. In terms of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, prior authorization from the competent authority is mandatory before conducting search and seizure, which requirement has not been complied with in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surepally Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (now State of Telangana) reported in 2025 Cr.LR (SC) 680, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the event of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and, consequently, to the grant of bail.

It is submitted that the petitioner has four previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, which pertain to below commercial quantity and in those cases, he has already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that challan has already been filed and the petitioner has been in custody since 19.11.2024, i.e. for about 1 year, 2 months and 4 days as on today. The trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude; therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted, and the benefit of bail deserves to be granted. Per c