SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 13203

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mukesh Rajpurohit, J
Devilal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3474/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bhagirath Bishnoi
For the Respondents: Pawan Bhati

In cases under the NDPS Act, excessive trial delays and flagrant procedural non-compliance, such as unjustified delays in FSL sample submission, can override the stringent requirements of Section 37, favoring the grant of bail to uphold the constitutional right to personal liberty and a fair trial process.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - S. 8, S. 22, S. 29, S. 42, S. 25 - Bail - Grant of - Long incarceration and procedural lapses in sample submission - Petitioner in custody for 1 year, 9 months, and 28 days - Delay of 23 days in sending samples to FSL contrary to Standing Order 1/1988 - Trial unlikely to conclude soon with 11 witnesses yet to be examined - Criminal antecedents do not automatically bar bail where prima facie case and delay are evident - Bail granted subject to conditions.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aged 21, was arrested on 23.06.2024 for alleged possession of 105 grams of Mephedrone. This is his second bail application. The trial court recorded the seizure officer's statement, revealing significant contradictions regarding mandatory compliance under S. 42 of the NDPS Act. Additionally, samples were dispatched to the FSL with an unexplained delay of 23 days, violating the 72-hour requirement under the Standing Order.

Findings of Court:
The court noted that while S. 37 of the NDPS Act places restrictions, the constitutional right to personal liberty (Art. 21) warrants relief when trial duration is excessive and procedures are not strictly followed. The court emphasized that incarceration cannot serve as a punishment before trial.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the commercial quantity of contraband and prior criminal antecedents, given the procedural non-compliance and inordinate delay in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural lapses (like the 23-day delay in FSL sample submission) and prolonged detention without the conclusion of the trial override the stringent conditions of S. 37 NDPS Act, especially when the accused has already served a significant period of time.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order

20/04/2026

The instant second 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:

S. No. Particulars of the case
1. FIR Number 276/2024
2. Police Station Sanchore
3. District Sanchore
4. Offences alleged in the FIR S. 8, 22, 29 NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any S. 25 NDPS Act

The 1st application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4000/2025 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 24.11.2025 passed by this court, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the statement of Seizure Officer-Ganga Prasad. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of Seizure Officer- Ganga Prasad has been recorded as PW-3. Hence, this second application for bail has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that although a recovery of 105 grams of narcotic contraband Mephedrone (M.D.) is allegedly effected from the petitioner, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with which vitiates the recovery. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution case, particularly in the cross-examination of the seizing officer, who has admitted mandatory non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and absence of independent witnesses. The relevant portion of statement of PW-3- Ganga Prasad is reproduced hereinbelow:

“जिरह द्वारा वकील श्री नंदपाल सिंह मुलजिम देवीलाल :- हम थाने सेकितने बजे रवाने हुये थे , समय याद नहीं है। का र्यवाही के बाद रात को करीबन 2 एएम बजे थाने गये थे। हमारे पा स सरकारी वाहन था। यह कहना सही हैकि चालक ने लॉगबुक भी भरी थी। यह कहना सही हैकि मुखबिर की सूचना थाने में नहीं मिली थी। हमें गश्त के दौरान धानता गांव में मुख बिर की सूचना मिली थी। मुखबिर ने मुझे टेलीफो निक सूचना से उक्त्त मादक पदार्थबाबत सूचना दी थी। मुखबिर का फोन 08.45 बजे के आ सपास आया था। हम जब रेड देने गये तब मुखबिर धानता से बरामदगीस्थल तक साथ था। मैं मैन मुखबिर से आज दिन तक नहीं मिला। यह कहना सही हैकि मुझे मुखबिर की सूचना वाया पुलिसकर्मी के मिली थी। यह कहना सही हैकि मुखबिर नेजिस पुलिसकर्मी को उक्त मादक पदार्थ बाबत सूचना दी उस पुलिसकर्मी ने मुखबिर सूचना को धारा 42(2) एनडीपीएस एक्ट के तहत फर्दके रूप में अभिलिखित नहीं किया। यह कहना सही है कि मुखबिर नेसीधे मुझेसूचना नहीं दी थी। यह कहना सही हैकि मुख्य मुखबिर की को “ ईसूचना इस प्रत्रावली में नहीं है।”

It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of contraband was stated to be affected on 22.06.2024 whereas samples were sent for the FSL on 15.07.2024, after an inordinate and unjustified delay of 23 days. 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 argued that co-accused Ramesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8871/2024 and the case of the present petitioner is on similar footing than that of the co-accused Ramesh Kumar. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the petitioner is a young boy of 21 years old who is in custody since 23.06.2024 (1 year, 9 months and 28 days). It is further submitted that out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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 Balwind

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top