[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajuram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33240) on 28 July, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:33240]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8873/2025
Rajuram S/o Surjaram Puniya, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Tilwasni, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (Presently Lodged
In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaikishan Haniya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
28/07/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.111/2023 registered at Police Station
Begun, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15, 8/25
of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25, 5/25 of the Arms Act and
Section 307, 34 of the IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case of
alleged offence is made out against the petitioner and he is in
judicial custody since 08.05.2023 (2 year, 02 months, and 20 days
as on today). Learned counsel submits that out of 37 prosecution
witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined till date, the
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:40:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33240] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8873/2025]
delay in not at all attributable to the present petitioner. Learned
counsel submits that looking to the pace at which trial is being
conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to
be conducted in the near future. 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.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa
(Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.
Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment
of Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been
observed as under:
“9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the
petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-
accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to
examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a
near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial
process itself being the punishment particularly when there is
presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it
appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is
ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the
learned trial court.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:40:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33240] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8873/2025]
Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024], decided on
22.05.2025, 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 petitioner submits that the charge-
sheet has already been filed and the petitioner is currently facing
trial, therefore, on these grounds, he implore the court to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that looking to the nature of allegation
and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:40:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33240] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8873/2025]indulgence of bail. However, he is not in a position to dispute the
fact that the petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2023 (2 year, 02
months, and 20 days as on today) and that out of 37 prosecution
witnesses only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined
before the competent criminal Court.
Having considered the rival submissions, overall facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the verdict given by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration for more than 2 years and out of total 37 cited
witnesses, only 2 witnesses has been examined till date, thus,
without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court
deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Rajuram S/o Surjaram Puniya, arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.111/2023 registered at Police Station Begun, District
Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided he 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 his appearance before that court on each & every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion
of the trial.
In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of
hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking
unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of
concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The
prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:40:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33240] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8873/2025]an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner today by this Court.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
196-Hanuman/-
(Downloaded on 30/07/2025 at 09:40:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link