Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 918 (RAJ)

Jai Singh S/o Pitram Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-21

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant bail 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 77/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Sadar 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/25 & 29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned order 05.02.2025 2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that the petitioner came to be arrested in this case on 27.02.2023 in connection with recovery of 355 Kg poppy husk (in 18 bags) from the Truck Container bearing registration No.RJ41-GA4969 which was being driven by petitioner. His first, second and third bail applications being SBCRLMB No.10065/2023, & 12529/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 03.10.2023 & 22.10.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail application this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after change in circumstance. 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. He submits that the contraband was recovered on 27.02.2023 and he has been behind bars since a very long period and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure memo, it was prepared at police station is highly doubtful and no explanation has been furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted and why the seizure was conducted/carried out at the police station which is not the place where contraband was recovered. Since the co-accused Ranveer Singh and Mohan Lal have been released on bail, thus, bail can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. 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. Since the co-accused Ranveer Singh and Mohan Lal have been released on bail, thus, bail can be granted to the petitioner on the ground of parity. 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. 6. Perusal of the record revealing that on 27.02.2023, SHO Sadar, along with his team, during raid recovered 18 plastic bags containing 335 kg poppy husk from the bathroom of the petitioner. During investigation and petitioner was arrested and FIR aforesaid was registered at the Police Station Bhadesar, Chittorgarh under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the police station Sadar, Chittorgarh instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the seizure memo. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the seizure and sealing were not done at the place where the vehicle was actually intercepted. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the place of interception before hand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared at another place i.e. Police Station Sadar, Chittorgarh. It seems as if seizure/recovery memo has been prepared as a paper formality wherever it is felt convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, the above act of the officers, water down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo. 7. It is further revealing from the record that till date out of total 18 witnesses, statements of only 4 witnesses have been recorded in the trial. Besides the delay in trial, the petitioner has an arguable case in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and flouting of the Standing Orders 1/1989 issued by the Central Govt. 7. It is further revealing from the record that till date out of total 18 witnesses, statements of only 4 witnesses have been recorded in the trial. Besides the delay in trial, the petitioner has an arguable case in respect of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions and flouting of the Standing Orders 1/1989 issued by the Central Govt. with regard to seizure, sampling of the contraband and in my view, if the same would be adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, he may get acquittal. Of course, 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. When there appears conflict between the statutory provision and the fundamental right then this Court is of the view that a protection of fundamental right should be given preference over the statutory bar in granting bail. If other surrounding factors align in consonance with the statutory stipulations, the personal liberty of an individual can not encroached upon by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time pending trial. 8. 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 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 account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence. 9. 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 criminal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been around two 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. A detailed order dated 27.08.2022 has been passed in this regard by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 12906/2022 titled Suraj vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been emphasized that the right of the accused to get a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 10. A detailed order dated 27.08.2022 has been passed in this regard by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 12906/2022 titled Suraj vs. State of Rajasthan wherein it has been emphasized that the right of the accused to get a speedy trial is an inalienable fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 10. In Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 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. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 12. 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.