Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Manpreet Singh Alias Mani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28644) on 3 July, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:28644]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 5005/2025
Manpreet Singh @ Mani S/o Jasvinder Singh, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Matili Rathan, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar
(Lodged In Sub Jail Sri Karanpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Thind
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
03/07/2025
The present third bail application has been filed under
Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.). The petitioner has been arrested
in connection with FIR No.149/2021 Police Station Sri Karanpur,
District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Section
8/22 of the NDPS Act. The first bail application was dismissed as
not pressed on 01.07.2022 by this Court and the second bail
application was dismissed on 08.01.2025 by this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 11.09.2021 and the
trial is still pending. It is further submitted that the co-accused,
Reena Kaur, was arrested by the police and charges have been
framed against her by the trial court. All the prosecution witnesses
have also been summoned in the matter. It is also submitted that
there are no other cases of similar nature registered against the
present petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28644] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-5005/2025]
placed reliance on the recent order dated 13.07.2023 passed by
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Prakash vs. The
State of Odisha (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023),
wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under:-
“3. We are informed that the trial has commenced
but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been
examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take
some more time.
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the
respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the
1st condition stands complied with. So far as the
2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to
whether there are reasonable grounds to believe
that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not
be formed at this stage when he has already spent
more than three and a half years in custody. The
prolonged incarceration, generally militates against
the most precious fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a
situation, the conditional liberty must override the
statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)
(ii) of the NDPS
Act.”
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, while dealing with the
cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and
the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time,
observed 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 bail on grounds of
violation of Part – III of the Constitution. Indeed,
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 th 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(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28644] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-5005/2025]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.”
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas
vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application
No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as
follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul
Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020),
Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma
Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of
UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of
Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused
persons, against whom the allegations are of
transporting or possessing narcotic contraband
above commercial quantity, on the ground of
custody period and taking into consideration the
fact that the trial against the said accused persons
will take time in completion. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has ordered for release of the accused
persons who were in custody from two years to
four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to
allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground
of custody period of the accused petitioner and
keeping in view the fact that the trial against him
has not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this third bail application
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri
Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection
with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja,
District Rajsamand provided he executes a(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28644] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-5005/2025]personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of learned trial court for his
appearance before that court on each and every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till the completion of the trial.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance
on the decision dated 28.03.2023 rendered by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023,
wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that delay in
trial can also be considered for releasing accused person on bail
despite the restrictions imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
and in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain‘s case (supra), the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
The petitioner has been in the judicial custody since
11.09.2021 i.e. more than three years and the trial of the case will
take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be
granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
gone through the material available on record.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far
suffered incarceration of more than 3 years and trial is still going
on. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the
embargo put on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act is not
total. In the provision, certain exceptions exist within Section 37
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28644] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-5005/2025]
itself and for those exceptions, bail can be granted. In the present
case, the petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of more than
3 years, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the
petitioner it would not be appropriate to invoke the rigor
envisaged under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the third bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner –
Manpreet Singh @ Mani S/o Jasvinder Singh, shall be enlarged on
bail in FIR No.149/2021 Police Station Sri Karanpur, District
Sriganganagar provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the
satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that
court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till the completion of the trial.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
30-GKaviya/-
(Downloaded on 03/07/2025 at 09:42:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)