Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Anwar Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:36686) on 18 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:36686]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14341/2024
Anwar Khan S/o Fuse Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jogasar ,
Baytu , P.s. Baytu, Barmer, Raj (Presently Lodged In Dist Jail
Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kr. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/08/2025
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 281/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Pindwara 3. District Sirohi 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15, 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 18.10.2024 order
2. The concise facts of the case are that as per the First Information
Report, on 26.08.2023 at 11:30 A.M., a pink-coloured car (RJ19-GD-
6834) with tarpaulin-covered truck (GJ09 BF-0719) proceeding at high
speed from Udaipur was intercepted. On being stopped, the occupants
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:46:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
of the vehicles appeared visibly nervous. Shortly thereafter, the driver
of a truck slowed down, identifying himself as Safi Khan, whereupon
other occupants of both vehicles attempted to abscond.
2.1. On interrogation, the individual seated beside the truck driver
disclosed the name of the person who fled as Sarif. The person on the
driver’s seat of the car identified himself as Anwar Khan
(accused/unknown); the truck driver gave his name as Safi Khan; and
the person seated in the helper’s seat as Sadiq Khan. Upon noticing the
police party, they panicked. A Motbiran was appointed in accordance
with law and both vehicles were searched.
2.2. When questioned about the goods concealed inside the wheels of
the car, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Though no
contraband was recovered from the car, it was disclosed that the car
was being used as an escort vehicle for the truck. On searching the
truck (RJ19-GD-6834), it was found loaded with poppy husk concealed
in 15 plastic cans beneath sacks of white powder. On weighing, the
contraband was found to be 3 quintals and 2 kilograms. Samples were
drawn and seizure proceedings conducted in accordance with
procedure.
2.3. During interrogation, the accused admitted that the contraband
had been loaded by Sarif Khan from a hotel near Neemuch and that the
consignment belonged to Sarif Khan, who had fled leaving his mobile
phone in the truck. On these facts, FIR No. 281/2023 was registered
under Sections 8/15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act. His first bail
application being SBCRLMB No.16313/2023 was dismissed by this Court
as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2024. Hence the
instant bail application.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:46:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
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.
4. 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.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
5.1. On close scrutiny of the record, it is evident that on
26.08.2023 at 11:30 A.M., a pink-coloured car (RJ19-GD-6834)
and a tarpaulin-covered truck (GJ09 BF-0719), both moving at
high speed from Udaipur, were intercepted. On being stopped, the
behaviour of the occupants appeared suspicious and reflected
nervousness. The truck driver, identifying himself as Safi Khan,
slowed down, whereupon certain occupants of both vehicles
attempted to flee.
5.2. The record further indicates that during interrogation, the co-
occupant sitting beside the truck driver disclosed the name of the
person who escaped as Sabudin. The driver of the car identified
himself as Anwar Khan, the truck driver as Safi Khan, and the
helper as Sadiq Khan. Their collective conduct, upon noticing the
police, was marked by panic and evasion. In accordance with
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:46:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
statutory requirements, a Motbiran was appointed and both
vehicles were searched.
5.3. The search of the car yielded no contraband, though the
explanation regarding suspected concealment in its wheels was
unsatisfactory. It was later alleged that the car was functioning as
an escort vehicle for the truck. The truck (RJ19-GD-6834), on the
other hand, was found loaded with poppy husk concealed in 15
plastic cans beneath sacks of white powder, weighing 3 quintals
and 2 kilograms in total.
5.4. Thus, while both vehicles were intercepted, only the truck
was found carrying contraband. No recovery was made from the
car. The sole basis of the prosecution’s case against the car is its
arrival at the spot shortly after the truck was stopped, leading to
the allegation that it was an escort vehicle.
5.5. At this stage, it is of paramount importance to note that the
allegation against the petitioner, insofar as the use of the car is
concerned, rests solely on the circumstance that the said vehicle
happened to be intercepted in temporal and spatial proximity to
the truck from which contraband was actually recovered. Such a
circumstance, standing in isolation, cannot in law be regarded as
sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the occupants of the car.
It is a matter of judicial recognition that national highways are
public thoroughfares, traversed daily by an unremitting flow of
innumerable vehicles. The mere fact that two vehicles are found
travelling one after another, or are intercepted within a short span
of time at or near the same location, cannot by itself constitute
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:46:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
proof of collusion, nor can it be legitimately inferred that one
vehicle was performing the role of an escort to the other. To
accept such a proposition would be to criminalise ordinary
vehicular movement, thereby subjecting innocent commuters to
unwarranted penal consequences. Criminal law, by its very nature,
requires proof of conscious possession, active participation, or
demonstrable nexus with the prohibited act; conjecture or
proximity in time and place does not suffice. In the absence of any
cogent, admissible, and corroborated evidence linking the
occupants of the car to the contraband discovered in the truck, the
attribution of liability merely on the basis of circumstantial
presence stands on precarious ground and cannot be sustained
within the framework of settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence.
5.6. In the absence of clear and admissible evidence establishing
a direct nexus between the car and the truck, the prosecution’s
claim that the car was an escort vehicle is speculative and cannot,
in law, be treated as a proved fact. Hence, no substantive link has
been established between the car’s occupants and the contraband
recovered from the truck.
5.7. The Court further notes that despite the long passage of
time, the trial has made little progress. Though charges were
framed and proceedings initiated, only two out of seventeen
witnesses have been examined so far. The delay has been
aggravated by the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet on
11.02.2025 implicating Shakur Khan, thereby requiring a de novo
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:46:59 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
trial. Consequently, the prospect of an early conclusion of the trial
appears highly unlikely.
6. 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
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
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:47:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside
the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence.
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 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.
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.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:47:00 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:36686] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-14341/2024]
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.
(FARJAND ALI),J
51-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:47:00 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)