Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vikram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:34313) on 4 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34313]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 8357/2025
Vikram S/o Raju Balai, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mahudiya, Ps
Baghana Dist Neemuch (Mp) ( At Present Lodged At Districy Jail,
Chittorgarh )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
04/08/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing the instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS 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 298/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Nimbahera Sadar 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned 11.06.2025 order
2. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 05.07.2022, Sho
Sadar Nimbahera along with his team while patrolling on
Neemach-Chittorgarh Highway intercepted a Bolero Pick-up
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34313] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-8357/2025]
No.MP09-GG8324 which was being driven by one Vikram and upon
search recovered 21 plastic bags carrying 497.600 poppy husk.
After following usual process, the petitioner was arrested and sent
to judicial custody. His first, second and third bail application
being SBCRLMB Nos. 9458/2023, 1124/2024 & 339/2025 were
dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 19.09.2023, 07.08.2024
& 10.02.2025. 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.
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.
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. A careful perusal of the case record reveals that on
05.07.2022, the Station House Officer of Police Station Nimbahera
Sadar, while on patrol duty with his team, allegedly effected the
recovery of approximately 497.600 kilograms of poppy husk from
vehicle which was driven by petitioner. He is in custody for last
more than three years. This Court feels that an under trial
prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no
fault of them in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34313] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-8357/2025]
material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this
matter in the year 2022 but owing to one or the other reason, the
recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It
is transpiring that out of the total 19 projected prosecution
witnesses, only 8 could have been examined uptill now and this
Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it
would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion.
It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by
the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early
culmination of the same.
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
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34313] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-8357/2025]
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
account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside
the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence.
7. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is
a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The
purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would
be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure
that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him
otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence
that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the
instant case, it has been more than three years have elapsed
since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are
getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any
progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as
an undertrial for an indefinite period.
8. 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
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34313] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-8357/2025]
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.
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar for
more than three years and noticing that culmination of trial in a
near future is not a seeming fate and considering the overall facts
and circumstances, furthermore, he is not having any previous
criminal antecedent except the present one, 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.
Looking to the high probability that the trial may still take a long
time to conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail
to the petitioner.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34313] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-8357/2025]
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
52-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 05/08/2025 at 08:59:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)