Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rakesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:31975) on 18 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:31975]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 3304/2025
Rakesh S/o Hanumanram Bishnoi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Hamir Nagar Dhaka Ku Dhani, Feench, P.s. Luni, Dist Jodhpur
(Presently Lodged In Dist Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.L. Thakur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S, Rathore, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/07/2025
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 234/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Nimbhera Sadar 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, 353 & 307 of the IPC & Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 482 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned 16.08.2024 order
2. The concise facts of the case are that On 03.07.2023, during
routine patrolling and blockade duty, police personnel stationed
near GSS on Dhoriya Road attempted to stop a Scorpio vehicle (RJ
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:43:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31975] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-3304/2025]
22 UB 4157) approaching from Binota. The driver, however,
opened fire on the police and fled under the cover of darkness.
The vehicle was intercepted near Dhoriya Square, where one
occupant, Rakesh was apprehended. He disclosed that the
absconding driver was Ramswaroop. A search of the vehicle,
conducted lawfully in the presence of independent witnesses,
resulted in the recovery of 4 quintals 26.5 kilograms of illegal
opium poppy husk stored in 21 plastic packets. Based on
investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Rakesh
for offences under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act, 3/25 Arms Act, and
307, 353 IPC before the competent court. His first bail application
being SBCRLMB No.15959/2023 was dismissed by this Court as
not pressed. Hence the instant bail application.
3. 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.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. This Court is of the considered opinion that an undertrial
prisoner ought not to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period,
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:43:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31975] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-3304/2025]
especially when the delay in trial is not attributable to the
accused. A perusal of the record reveals that although the trial
commenced in the year 2023, the examination of prosecution
witnesses has not been completed due to various reasons. Out of
the total 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 3 could have
been examined thus far.
7. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the
opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given
for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase
‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case
is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like
cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is,
one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression
‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable
circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that
situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping
an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose
of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a
reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused
is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case
are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District
Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In
criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption
of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven
guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose of
affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges
and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:43:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31975] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-3304/2025]
record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the
same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are
otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While
entertaining a bail plea the Court of law is required to take into
account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside
the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence.
6. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special
leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023, Hon’ble the Apex Court
has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this
issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the
prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious
fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the
right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and looking
to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last more
than two years and noticing that there is no criminal antecedent
except the present one and the culmination of trial in a near
future is not a seeming fate this Court is of the view that nature
and gravity of offence alone are not required to be considered at
the time of granting bail but at the same time, it has to be
ensured that the trial has to be concluded within a reasonable
period if the accused in languishing in jail therefore, without going
into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the
accused to have a speedy trial should be protected, this Court
deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:43:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31975] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-3304/2025]
8. 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.
9. 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
158-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:43:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)