Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12905/2025
Bhagwanlal S/o Bherulal Jaat, Aged About 26 Years, Chittorgarh
District Chittorgarh Rajasthan (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal R. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr., N.S. Chandawat, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 17/10/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./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 220/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Rashmi 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/18, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 15.09.2025 order
2. That, the present case arises out of FIR No. 220/2023 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18, 25, and 29 of (Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (2 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025] the NDPS Act. The brief facts, as emerging from the record, are that on 07.10.2023, the Station House Officer of Police Station Rashmi received information from the Station House Officer of Police Station Kapasan regarding the possession of illegal contraband (opium). Acting upon the said information, the concerned police personnel, along with the team from Police Station Kapasan, proceeded to the premises of the petitioner, Bhagwanlal, where a search was conducted, and a total of 7.760 kilograms of opium was allegedly recovered. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said recovery. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a bail application, which came to be dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 20.08.2025. Thereafter, during the course of trial, material witness Sanjay Sharma (PW-6), the Investigating Officer, was examined, and in view of the changed circumstances, the petitioner again moved a bail application before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act (Addl. Sessions Judge), Kapasan, District Chittorgarh, which was rejected by order dated 15.09.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present bail application before this Court.
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.
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025]
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 considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced at Bar and upon careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that after the dismissal of the earlier bail application as not pressed, significant developments have taken place in the present case. Notably, the prosecution has now examined the Investigating Officer, Sanjay Sharma (PW-
6), whose deposition has brought on record several material discrepancies and contradictions going to the root of the prosecution case. The testimony of the Investigating Officer does not inspire confidence as it appears inconsistent with the contemporaneous record, raising serious doubts regarding the manner and place of the alleged recovery.
7. A close scrutiny of the statement of Investigating Officer Sanjay Sharma recorded on 25.08.2025 reveals that he himself stated that the premises from where the alleged recovery was effected was said to belong to the petitioner Bhagwanlal; however, there is no oral or documentary evidence collected during the investigation to substantiate that the said premises was indeed owned, possessed, or controlled by the petitioner. The very foundation of linking the (Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (4 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025] petitioner with the alleged contraband, therefore, remains weak and uncorroborated.
8. Furthermore, it emerges from the record that the mandatory compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act has not been effectuated in its true spirit. The record does not reflect that the alleged secret information was reduced into writing or that a report was forthwith sent to the superior officer as required by law. The absence of such compliance, viewed in the strict sense mandated under Section 42, substantially affects the credibility of the prosecution story, especially when the recovery itself is under serious challenge.
9. Another significant aspect discernible from the evidence is the testimony of Prem Singh, the Seizing Officer, whose version also suffers from material inconsistencies. He admitted during his cross-examination that he had relied upon the daily rojnamcha entries (Ex. P-24 and Ex. P-25) to substantiate the proceedings. However, a comparative reading of these entries exposes several anomalies. The rojnamcha entry Ex. P-24 records that on 07.10.2023 at 23:51 hours, the SHO along with his team left the police station for general patrolling duty, whereas Ex. P-25 reflects their return to the police station at 05:53 hours on 08.10.2023. This timeline, on its face, contradicts the prosecution's own claim that the recovery was effected at about 6:00 p.m. on 07.10.2023, i.e., nearly six hours prior to the recorded departure of the team from the police station.
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (5 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025] This inconsistency goes to the root of the matter and discredits the version of the recovery as narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
10. Ex. P-25 further records that the team had gone to the house of one Kishan Singh upon receiving secret information and that the alleged seizure took place around 1:40 a.m. The Investigating Officer, however, in his statement, claimed that the search was conducted at 6:20 p.m. on 07.10.2023 and a separate seizure memo of currency notes was prepared at 7:35 p.m. The multiplicity of timings 6:00 p.m., 7:35 p.m., and 1:40 a.m. within the prosecution's own documents, without any rational explanation, renders the prosecution version doubtful and unreliable.
11. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the entire alleged recovery proceedings were, in fact, undertaken within the premises of the police station and that the memos were subsequently fabricated or manipulated at the police station cannot be brushed aside lightly, especially when the prosecution's own documentary evidence reflects substantial procedural irregularities. The contention carries weight and, at this stage, prima facie tilts in favour of the petitioner.
12. This Court also finds that the petitioner has been in continuous custody since 07.10.2023 and has thus remained incarcerated for over two years. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Prolonged pre-trial detention, in such circumstances, amounts to punishment before (Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (6 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025] conviction, which is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.
13. Moreover, from the record, it appears that there has been non-compliance with several procedural mandates contained in the NDPS Rules, 2022, including Rules 3, 5, 8, 9, and 13. These lapses further vitiate the sanctity of the search and seizure proceedings and dilute the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, particularly when the recovery itself is doubtful and the nexus of the petitioner with the contraband remains unestablished.
14. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the discrepancies appearing in the prosecution evidence, non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the NDPS Rules, the prolonged custody of the petitioner, and the fact that the trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
15. Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed. It is directed that the accused-petitioner, Bhagwanlal, arrested in connection with FIR No. 220/2023, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- along with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, subject to the conditions that he shall appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing and shall (Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) (7 of 7) [CRLMB-12905/2025] not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness in any manner whatsoever.
(FARJAND ALI),J 143-/-
(Uploaded on 27/10/2025 at 12:38:20 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 09:23:16 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)