Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32246) on 22 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:32246]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6624/2025
Pankaj S/o Kailashchandra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Balaguda
Police Station Pipaliyamandi District Mandsaur MP (Presently
Lodged In Dist Jail Pratapgarh, Raj)
----petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14958/2024
Vinod S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Balaguda, P.S.
Pipliyamdi, Dist Mandsaur (M.P.) (Presently Lodged In Dist Jail
Pratapgarh)
----petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For petitioners(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur
Mr. Ashok Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
22/07/2025
These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested
in connection with F.I.R. No.41/2023 registered at Police Station
Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15
of the NDPS Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:32:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32246] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6624/2025]
Learned counsel further submits that in nutshell, the fact of
the case are that on 03.03.2023 at around 1:10 pm Police Control
Pratapgarh was informed via wireless communication from the
office of Chhoti Sadri. Pursuant to the said information, Manish
Badgujar was conducting a blockade in front of the Mega Highway
Road alongwith other Police personnel. It is alleged that a
Mahendra SUV attempted to break through the blockade of Police
and in doing so, lost control and overturned. Upon inspection,
three persons were found and rescued from the vehicle. Upon
being asked their names they identified themselves as Pankaj,
Raju and Vinod and the person who fled the scene was identified
as Ajay. Upon inspection of the said vehicle, a total 151 kg and
200 gms illegal poppy straw was recovered. The contraband was
seized, duly sealed, and was sent to FSL for chemical examination.
The petitioners were arrested and a case under the NDPS Act was
registered against them. Hence, the instant bail application.
It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no
case of alleged offence is made out against the petitioners and
they are in judicial custody since 03.03.2023 (2 years 3 months).
It is further submitted that out of total 19 cited prosecution
witnesses, the statement of only 3 witnesses have been recorded
so far by the trial Court. While it’s true that, there is a fetter under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding grant of bail to an accused
having illegal possession of commercial quantity of contraband but
a fundamental right of speedy trial to him cannot be permitted to
be flouted.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:32:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32246] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6624/2025]
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 13483/2024, wherein, while allowing the bail
application, it was observed as under:
“7. 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.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars
for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact
that there is high probability that the trial may take long
time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance
with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that
the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified
thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to
the petitioner.
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the challan
has already been filed in this matter and the petitioners are in
custody since 03.03.2023 (2 years 3 months) and the trial of the
case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail
may be granted to the accused-petitioners.
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:32:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32246] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6624/2025]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail applications and submitted that the recovered
narcotic contraband is above commercial quantity, however, he is
not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioners are in
custody since 03.03.2023 and only 3 prosecution witnesses have
been examined out of a total of 19 prosecution witnesses.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, after perusing the record, and looking
to the custody period of the petitioners and considering that the
trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined
to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioners (1) Pankaj S/o Kailashchandra and (2) Vinod S/o
Mohanlal, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.41/2023
registered at Police Station Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh, shall
be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each
of them 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 their appearance before that court on each & every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the
trial.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
50-51–Hanuman/-
(Downloaded on 25/07/2025 at 11:32:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link