Gagandeep Singh @ Jaggu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:31874) on 21 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Gagandeep Singh @ Jaggu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:31874) on 21 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:31874]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 8440/2025

Gagandeep Singh @ Jaggu S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 24
Years, Ward No 5, Matillirathan, Police Station Matillirathan,
District Sriganganagar (Lodged In Sub Jail, Srikaranpur)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Mohan Lal
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Shreeram Choudhary, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

21/07/2025

This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner. The

petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.149/2021

of Police Station Shri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar for the

offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. He has

preferred this bail application under Section 483 BNSS. Earlier bail

application was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed by

this Court.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that similar situated co-

accused Manpreet Singh @ Manni has already been enlarged on

bail by this Court and the case of present petitioner is not

distinguishable. Counsel further submits 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

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:27:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31874] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8440/2025]

present petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel

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

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:27:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31874] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8440/2025]

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 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

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:27:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31874] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8440/2025]

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
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 third bail

application.

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

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:27:08 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:31874] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8440/2025]

embargo put on grant of bail under Section 37 of the Act is not

total. In the provision, certain exceptions exist within Section 37

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 –

Gagandeep Singh @ Jaggu S/o Mahendra Singh, shall be

enlarged on bail in FIR No.149/2021 Police Station Sri Karanpur,

District Sri Ganganagar 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
95-mSingh/-

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 06:27:09 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)