Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Meghraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28798) on 3 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28798]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5827/2025
Meghraj S/o Rampal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhagunagar, P.s.
Kachhola Dist. Bhilwara (Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/07/2025
This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with F.I.R. No.70/2023 registered at Police Station Kachhola,
District, Bhilwara, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18
of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused
Badrilal (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.3143/2025)
has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 05.05.2025. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not
at all distinguishable with that of case of co-accused Badrilal who
has already been enlarged on bail.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody for the last two years and till date; out of total 23
cited prosecution witnesses, statements of only 07 witnesses have
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28798] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5827/2025]
been recorded before the competent criminal Court; the order
sheets of the trial Court clearly indicates that the delay in trial is
not at all attributable to the petitioner. On these grounds, learned
counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to
refute the fact that the co-accused Badrilal has already been
enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 05.05.2055.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court while enlarging the co-accused Badrilal on bail is
reproduced below for the ready reference:-
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an
application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-
petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein
below:
S.No. Particulars of the case 1. FIR Number 70/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Kachhola 3. District Bhilwara 4. Offences alleged in the Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act FIR 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of 09.01.2025 impugned order
2. 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.
3. 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.
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28798] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5827/2025]
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the
parties and perused the material available on record.
5. On two earlier occasions, the bail applications of the petitioner
being SBCRLMB Nos.13617/2023 & 1389/2024 were dismissed by this
Court vide orders dated 21.11.2023 & 11.11.2024 considering the
statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of
the charges. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew
the prayer for bail after the examination of the seizing officer and the
investigating officer in the course of the course of trial. It is submitted
that both the said officers have now been examined, and hence, the
present application. The petitioner is in custody for the last two years.
Out of the total 23 projected witnesses, only a few have been
examined.
6. It has been contended that there has been non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 42 and
52A. Though this Court refrains from making any conclusive
observations at this stage as the trial is ongoing, and such comments
may prejudice the proceedings, the defense plea in this regard cannot
be out-rightly brushed aside.
7. The admissions made by officers of Respondent Department
during their examination in trial elucidating a new fact that the recovery
was made by a special team of the CID Crime Branch, Jaipur under the
leadership of one Ram Singh Nathawath and for which a news was
widely aired and telecasted within few minutes. However, the Seizure
Memo recites a different story regarding intercepting the vehicle and
effecting seizure by a different officer. Despite opportunity and effecting
seizure on a public place deliberately no independent witness has been
associated to verify the fact of recovery and in my view the above is
valid ground in favor of the accused to challenge sanctity of the seizure.
Only police constables subordinate to the first informant, who is the
seizing officer have been made attesting witness of the recovery memo.
Though in all cases the statement of seizing officer and statement of
police constable verifying the recovery cannot be discarded but here in
this case several other incongruence have entered into the case which
are putting a serious dent on the genuineness of the allegation. Besides
the above, the plea of the defense regarding non-compliance of
mandatory provision and Houting floating of guidelines and NDPS rules,
2022, particularly rules 3, 5, 8, 9, and 13 and flouting of Standing order
1/89 cannot be overlooked.
8. Considering the totality of circumstances, prolonged incarceration
of the petitioner, the stage of trial, the contradictions appearing in the
prosecution story, and the possible delay in conclusion of trial, this
Court is of the view that a case for grant of bail is made out.
9. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a
rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose
behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to
secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the
sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of
Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt
is proved.
10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the
cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 do so.”
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28798] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5827/2025]
Considering the fact that co-accused has already been
enlarged on bail, prolong incarceration of the petitioner and
possible delay of trial, this Court is of the view that this is a fit
case for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Meghraj S/o Rampal arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.70/2023 registered at Police Station Kachhola, District,
Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and
two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned
trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion
of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
194-divya/-
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)