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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15301

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
RAFIQUE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 5976 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:24767]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5976/2026

Rafique S/o Gulam Farid, Aged About 44 Years, Ward No. 08

Kikarwali Police Station Sangariya Dist Hanumangarh (Lodged In

Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achala Ram

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

20/05/2026

This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been

arrested in connection with FIR No.683/2022 registered at Police

Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh, for

offences under Sections 8/22 and 25 of the NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution, on 29.09.2022, during routine

patrolling, a team of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction

apprehended a boy (petitioner) standing near his motorcycle.

Upon searching, the police recovered 12 boxes in his backpack.

Out of 12 boxes, eight boxes contained 3990 tables of Tramadol

HCL-SR, weighing 01 kilogram and 316 grams and the rest four

boxes contained 2385 tablets of Alprazolam 283.02 grams. The

petitioner was arrested on the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is in judicial custody since 29.09.2022. Till date, out of total 16

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 03:19:18 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:24:11 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:24767] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5976/2026]

cited prosecution witnesses, only 10 prosecution witnesses have

been examined before competent Criminal Court and the delay in

trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. Learned counsel

further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since

last more than 3 years 6 months and looking to the pace at which

trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is

not likely to be concluded in near future.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail

application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the

offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail

application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public

Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in

last more than 3 years 6 months, out of total 16 cited prosecution

witnesses, only 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined till

date.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material

available on record.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration for last more than 3 years 6 months and out of total

16 cited prosecution witnesses, only 10 prosecution witnesses

have been examined till date, without expressing any opinion on

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the

bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of

BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-

petitioner- Rafique S/o Gulam Farid shall be enlarged on bail in

connection with FIR No.683/2022 registered at Police Station

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 03:19:18 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 07:24:11 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:24767] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5976/2026]

Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh, provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two

sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the

dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of

hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking

unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of

concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The

prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move

an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the

petitioner today by this Court

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for li

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top