[2026:RJ-JD:348]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10617/2025 Balli S/o Bhulla Ram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Naagal Tappa Khutetakala,police Station Bagad Tiraya,district Alwar Rajasthan (Lodged In District Jail,bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/01/2026

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. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 07.08.2024, during a routine blockade conducted near Mandal on National Highway-48, a Honda City Car bearing registration No.HR-26-BD-8523 was intercepted. The driver, identified as Balli , who attempted to flee but was apprehended. Upon search of the vehicle, five black plastic sacks were recovered out of which, three from the rear seat and two from the boot, containing 86.730 kilograms of illicit poppy husk (doda chura). The contraband was duly seized in accordance with law and FIR No.304/2024 was registered under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Subsequent investigation culminated in filing of charge-sheet against the principal accused Balli under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 NDPS Act. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.14402/2024 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 12.06.2025 and a liberty was given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statement of Seizing Officer. Now, around one and half years have lapsed, and witnesses are yet to be examined hence, the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that 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. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Upon a careful and dispassionate perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner was arrested on 07.08.2024 in connection with the alleged recovery of 86.73 kg of poppy husk. Although the said quantity marginally exceeds the notified commercial quantity of 50 kg, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be categorized as an extraordinarily huge or staggering quantity so as to foreclose the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of grant of bail.

6.1. The charges in the present case were framed approximately one and a half years ago; however, the trial has made negligible progress thereafter. The record unmistakably reveals that the delay in the conduct of the trial is attributable solely to the prosecution, as till date, statements of only five witnesses have been recorded out of the total projected witnesses. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner has, in any manner, contributed to or protracted the delay in the trial proceedings.

6.2. Apart from the inordinate delay in trial, the petitioner has raised substantial and arguable issues concerning non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and alleged infraction of Standing Order No.1/1989 issued by th