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