Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30821) on 10 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:30821]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3123/2025
Vinod Kumar S/o Amarjeet, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sedampur
Dahauli, Ps. Govindgarh Dist.alwar , Raj. (Presently Lodged At
Churu Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 10/07/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNSS corresponding to 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 32/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Doodhwakhara 3. District Churu 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned 20/02/2025 order
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 27.03.2023 at approximately 05:00 AM, at NH-52 blockade point near Nikli, the Station House Officer of Police Station Dudhwakhara, along with (Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:18:17 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:30821] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3123/2025] the accompanying police team, intercepted and searched a vehicle
--an Eicher truck bearing registration number RJ 02 GC 1269-- during routine blockade proceedings. Upon inspection, from the conscious possession of four accused persons aboard the vehicle, a total of 150 kilograms of doda post (poppy husk) packed in plastic sacks, was recovered without any valid license or permit. In compliance with legal procedure, samples were collected, and the remaining contraband was sealed and marked. Based on the said seizure, an FIR was registered, and investigation was initiated. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before this Hon'ble Court against accused Vinod Kumar under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, while proceedings under Section 299 CrPC were initiated against accused Ravindra Singh. His first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.8189/2023. 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. 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.
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:18:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:30821] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3123/2025]
4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.
5. Perusal of the record revealing that petitioner has been arrested in this case with regard to recovery of 150 Kg poppy husk. The prosecution has projected total 18 witness and out of which only one witness could have been examined yet. In compliance with this Court's direction, a present status report has been received from the learned Trial Court, vide letter dated 05.05.2025. As per the said communication, the petitioner is currently lodged in judicial custody, while co-accused Ravinder has been reported as absconding. The Trial Court has conveyed that earnest efforts are being made to apprehend the absconding accused; however, such efforts have not yielded any result thus far. It is evident that the continuation of trial proceedings is being hindered due to the non-appearance of the absconding co- accused. However, the petitioner, who is already in custody, cannot be indefinitely detained solely on this ground, particularly when he is available for trial and not responsible for the delay. The pendency of the trial, due to the inability to secure the presence of the absconding accused, cannot justify the prolonged incarceration of the present petitioner. Looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
6. 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 (Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:18:18 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:30821] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3123/2025] 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.
7. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS 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 39-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 17/07/2025 at 09:18:18 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)