Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Onkardeep Singh S/O Sh. Harsharan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:42395) on 15 October, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:42395]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2887/2025
1. Onkardeep Singh S/o Sh. Harsharan Singh, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Sohalthatti, P.s. Chabal, District Tarantaran
(Punjab) (At Present In Central Jail Kota)
2. Karanveer Singh S/o Sh. Inderpal Singh, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Chabhalkalan, P.s. Chabhal, District Tarantaran
(Punjab) (At Present In Central Jail Kota).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
15/10/2025
1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.101/2024 registered at Police Station Mandana, District Kota Rural (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/18 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of BNS & Section 4/25 of Arms Act.
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 03.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, statement of Seizure Officer (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:42395] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2887/2025] has been recorded during the course of trial thus this second bail application has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2024 and as such, they have suffered incarceration of about one year and five months. It is submitted that provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with properly. Section 42 provides for power of a police officer of making entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization in any building, conveyance or enclosed place between sunrise and sunset, provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender. The police officer may enter and search such buildings, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. Where an officer takes down any information in writing under Sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he has to forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. It is submitted that in this case, search has been effected between the sunset and sunrise accidentally but before making search officer had opted to follow the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act which shows that he was aware about the fact of possession of narcotic drug or substance with the petitioners, therefore, it was incumbent upon the officer to follow the provisions of NDPS Act but admittedly, no memo in terms of Section 42 of NDPS Act was prepared by seizure (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:42395] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2887/2025] officer regarding the reasons effecting the search between sunset and sunrise. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Laxman Jena, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 332 and Mohinder Kumar VS State Of Goa, reported in AIR1995 SC) 1157.
4. Learned counsel further draws attention to the testimony of the seizure officer, who admitted that he did not associate any independent witness during search proceedings while independent persons were available near at toll plaza and further failed to note name of any person who refused to become witness. Counsel further submits that application for preparation of inventory was not filed soon after alleged recovery as same was filed after 12 days and there is no explanation about this delay. Counsel further submits that log book of government vehicle used by raiding party has not been filed deliberately along with charge sheet. Counsel submits that seizure officer was required to follow the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act from the stage he had reason to believe that the accused persons were in custody of narcotic drugs and constable was sent to call for panchas (independent person for search). It is argued that all these facts and circumstances clearly indicate that a false case of recovery of 5.550 kg of opium has been planted. Lastly, it is urged that continued incarceration of the petitioner will serve no fruitful purpose, as he has clean antecedents and the trial will take considerable time to conclude.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that considering the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the petitioners (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:42395] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2887/2025] does not deserve indulgence of bail in view of section 37 of the NDPS Act.
6. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute embargo on grant of bail. While considering bail, the Court is not required to record a positive finding of innocence; rather, it must assess, prima facie, whether the accused may not be guilty, upon a reasonable and broad evaluation of the material on record. Meticulous examination of evidence is not warranted at this stage.
8. The petitioners have been in custody for over one year and five months, and there appears no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Thus, the petitioners' fundamental right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stands infringed. Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the cherished right to personal liberty, and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of the cases.
9. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as noted above, as also considering the statement of the seizure officer; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:42395] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2887/2025] without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.
10. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - 1) Onkardeep Singh S/o Sh. Harsharan Singh & 2) Karanveer Singh S/o Sh. Inderpal Singh, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
11. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence every week in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.
12. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.
13. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.
14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.
(Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:42395] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2887/2025]
15. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /58 (Uploaded on 17/10/2025 at 04:55:24 PM) (Downloaded on 18/10/2025 at 12:57:30 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)