Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nishan Singh @ Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:17935) on 7 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:17935]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4256/2025
Nishan Singh @ Soni S/o Jogendrda Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Jogendrapalla Megha Basti Mattad, Panchayat Bhammasingh
Wala,p..s Sadar Firozpur, District Firozpur (Lodged In Central Jail
Bathinda)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 07/04/2025 This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.22/2017 registered at Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Section 8/21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 04.03.2017, Sub Inspector, BSF, saw some suspicious movement near the barricades on the special surveillance devices and upon reaching at the spot and conducting search of the area, the contraband (heroin) weighing 2 Kgs in 2 plastic bags was recovered. The petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.11.2019. He further submitted that till date, out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, only 16 prosecution witnesses have (Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:36:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17935] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4256/2025] been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since last more than 05 years 04 months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.
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 petitioner is facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last more than 05 years 04 months, out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, only 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for last more than 05 years 04 months and out of total 28 cited prosecution witnesses, only 16 (Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:36:05 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:17935] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4256/2025] prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, 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.
Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Nishan Singh @ Soni S/o Jogendrda Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.22/2017 registered at Police Station Gajsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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 so.
In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this Court.
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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 3-divya/-
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:36:05 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)