State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

: Mr. Onkar Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through VC) Order 16/05/2025

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

6. FIR Number Concerned Police Station Jobner District Jaipur Rural Offences alleged in the FIR Offences added, if any Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act Section 8/25 & 29 of the NDPS Act Date of passing of impugned

19.02.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:20914] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-3054/2025]

2. The present case arises from a report lodged by complainant Jogendra Singh Rathod, SHO, Jobner Police Station, stating that on 28.04.2021, Rajveer Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector, informed him that he had received information from a special informer regarding a truck carrying doda post approaching Jobner from Mahala. Acting on this information, the SHO, along with his squad, proceeded to the Jobner-Mahala bypass intersection, where they set up a blockade and began checking vehicles. During the operation, a truck bearing registration number RJ-19-GG-0068 was seen coming from Mahala. When the police signaled it to stop, the driver attempted to flee. Upon being apprehended and questioned, the driver identified himself as Rajuram. A search of the truck revealed 78 sacks containing a total of 2793.480 kg of illegal opium doda chura, later identified as doda chura. Upon being asked to produce a valid permit for the transportation, the driver admitted to having none. Based on this report, FIR No.152/2021 was registered at Police Station Jobner under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, and the applicant/accused was arrested during the investigation and produced before the court. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted. The applicant's first, second, and third bail applications were previously rejected. Subsequently, due to a change in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant has now filed the present fourth 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 [2025:RJ-JP:20914] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-3054/2025] 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. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bar for last four yeas in connection with recovery of 2793.480 kg Poppy husk. It is revealing from the record that till date out of total projected 17 witnesses, statements of only 6 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 [2025:RJ-JP:20914] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-3054/2025] 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. 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, now 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.

9. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:20914] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-3054/2025]

10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around 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. (FARJAND ALI),J Mamta/17