##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:24296]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. 6^th Bail Application No. 6056/2025

Ashok S/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Hamir

Nagar Finch, Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

(Lodged In District Jail Pali)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi

For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. S. Ojha, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

19/05/2026

The present 6^th bail application has been filed under Section

439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody

in connection with FIR No.152/2017, Police Station- Rani, District

Pali for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 & 18 of NDPS

Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the

rejection of the 5^th bail application of the petitioner on 05.03.2021,

out of total 20 listed prosecution witnesses, the testimony of only

11 prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the trial

court so far. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has

suffered incarceration for more than four years and the trial is not

likely to be concluded in near future.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 01:06:05 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:57:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:24296] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6056/2025]

delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner and the

same is not likely to be concluded in near future. Learned counsel

for the petitioner has placed reliance on the cases of Rabi

Prakash V/s State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal Crl.

No.4169/2023) decided on 13.07.2023 and Mohd. Muslim V/s

State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2023 SC1648. He,

therefore, submits that considering the delay in completion of trial

and the fact that petitioner faced incarceration for more than four

years, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application,

however, is not in a position to refute the submissions made by

the counsel for the petitioner and he submits that out of total 20

witnesses, only 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

far and the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than

four years.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

The petitioner is facing trial for an offence under the NDPS

Act and has suffered incarceration for more than four years. It is

a fact that out of total 20 witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been

examined before the trial Court so far. It appears that trial is not

likely to be completed in near future.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s

K. A. Najeeb, reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713 has held as under:-

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of

statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the

UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the

constitutional courts to grant bail7 on grounds of

violation of Part -III of the Constitution. Indeed,

(Uploaded on 19/05/2026 at 01:06:05 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 08:57:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:24296] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6056/2025]

both the restrictions under a statute as well as the

powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction

can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement

of proceedings, the courts are expected to

appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail

but the rigours of such provisions will melt down

where there is no likelihood of trial being completed

within a reasonable time and the period of

incarceration already undergone has exceeded a

substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an

approach would safeguard against the possibility of

provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being

used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for

wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy

trial”.

Recently, the view taken in K.A. Najeeb’s case has been

reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in t