Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 443 (RAJ)

Derawar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-19

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) 1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.48/2021, registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 8/21, 24, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused persons namely Kalu Singh and Khat Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4/2025) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.07.2024 and till date out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, none of the cited prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent criminal Court. 4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the daily order sheets of the competent criminal Court below, learned counsel submitted that delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that in the last more than 3 years and 6 months, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined before the competent criminal Court, therefore, looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future. 5. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, a huge quantity of the contraband has been recovered by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since last more than 3 years and 6 months and till date date out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, none of the cited prosecution witnesses has been examined before the competent criminal Court. He was also not in a position to refute the fact the above named co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by of this Court. He was also not in a position to refute the fact the above named co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by of this Court. The order dated 24.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.48/2021, registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 8/21, 24, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per prosecution, on 07.07.2021, the Additional S.P. ATS Unit, Jodhpur received a secret information that petitioner- Kalu Singh and the co-accused Derawar Singh would supply a huge quantity of the contraband received by them from Pakistan to their customers who had come from Punjab. In furtherance of the aforesaid information, the police reached near Gagariya Bus Stand at about 1 pm and apprehended the co-accused Derawar Singh. The co-accused Derawar Singh in his confessional statement/information informed that he alongwith the petitioner Kalu Singh received 22 packets of contraband (heroine) from Pakistan and had concealed the same under the bushes near border. The co- accused Derawar Singh in his confessional statement/information further stated that on 07.07.2021, he alongwith the petitioner- Kalu Singh and the co-accused Devi Singh came in Bolero vehicle to border area and loaded 22 packets of contraband (heroine) in the offending vehicle and thereafter, unloaded the same in a field belonging to the petitioner- Khet Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 08.07.2021; the investigation against them has already been concluded and till date out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, none of the cited prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent criminal Court. Drawing attention of the Court towards the daily order sheets of the competent criminal Court below, learned counsel submitted that delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioners. Drawing attention of the Court towards the daily order sheets of the competent criminal Court below, learned counsel submitted that delay in trial is not attributable to the present petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that since in last more than 3 years and 6 months, no prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent criminal Court, looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioners, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the 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.” On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, a huge quantity of the contraband has been recovered by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, a huge quantity of the contraband has been recovered by the Investigating Agency. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since last more than 3 years and 6 months and till date date out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses, none of the cited prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent criminal Court. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Consequently, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1) Kalu Singh S/o Shri Khet Singh and (2) Khet Singh S/o Shri Deep Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.48/2021, registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, 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. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.” 8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.07.2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 9. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Derawar Singh S/o Narpat Singh , arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.48/2021, registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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. 10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.