Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:45369) on 10 October, 2025

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:45369) on 10 October, 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.     Crime/Complaint Number                          70/2023
     2.     Concerned Police Station                        Churu Sadar
     3.     District                                        Churu
     4.     Offences alleged in the Complaint               Section 8/15, 29 of
                                                            the NDPS Act
     5.     Offences added, if any                          -
     6.     Date of passing of impugned order               07.08.2025


2.        The   prosecution       case    arises     from       an   incident   dated

06.07.2023, wherein during routine patrolling on public road MH 52 near Mauja Badar, a checkpoint was established for (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (2 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] the inspection of vehicles. At approximately 11:40 AM, a grey Brezza car bearing registration No.HR 31 L 1575 was intercepted and searched, followed shortly at 11:50 AM by a white tempo registered as HR 62 A 6527. During the course of inspection, 17 plastic bags containing a total of 230 kilograms of Doda Post Chilka (opium husk) were recovered from these vehicles, in addition to 45 bags of onions found in the tempo. The vehicles' documents were also seized. 2.1. An FIR was lodged based on this seizure, and an investigation ensued. Charges were framed against accused Kuldeep Singh, Sanjay Kumar, and Mandeep Singh under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS Act, while accused Shri Ram was charged under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The charge sheet was filed under Section 299 of the CrPC. The first bail application filed by accused Kuldeep Singh (SBCRLMB No.12200/2024) was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 21.05.2025. The present bail application is thus filed.

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 Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (3 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025]

5. I have carefully heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and meticulously examined the available material on record.

5.1. This Court, by order dated 28.08.2025, expressed grave concern over the recurring failure of police officers to discharge their statutory duties, particularly highlighting the inexplicable non-execution of arrest warrants against police personnel. The order, which is reproduced verbatim below, outlines the Court's stern observations and directives:

1. Learned counsel for the State submits that despite repeated and sincere efforts by the learned trial Court to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses, particularly police officials who were instrumental in the recovery, they are not turning up to depose before the Court. It is further informed that even warrants of arrest have been issued against certain police officers; however, such warrants have not been effectuated.

2. This Court finds it to be a most distressing and deplorable state of affairs that police officers, who themselves are duty-bound to effectuate service of process in criminal cases, are blatantly defying the process of law. The situation becomes even more alarming when a warrant of arrest issued by a Court is not executed merely because the concerned person happens to be a police officer. The very fact that a serving police officer, who is posted at some place in the State and performing public duty, cannot be apprehended despite an arrest warrant against him, shakes the confidence of the public in the justice delivery system and seriously erodes the faith of the society in the preventive agency itself. Nothing can be more shameful for a democratic system governed by rule of law.

3. In Ganesh Ram v. State of Rajasthan ( Date of order :

1.12.2015 ), the co-ordinate bench of this Court had already directed that in order to ensure smooth compliance of (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (4 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] summons and warrants issued to police witnesses, the Director General of Police shall appoint a Nodal Officer in each district, preferably not below the rank of Circle Inspector, who shall be responsible for ensuring service of summons and securing attendance of police witnesses before the Courts. The trial Court concerned was authorized to forward summons directly to such Nodal Officer, and in case of non-compliance, the said officer was to be held personally liable.

4. For ready it is being reproduced hereunder-

"Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, learned P.P. states that for ensuring smooth compliance of the process issued by the Courts to the police witnesses, a Nodal Officer should be directed to be appointed under each District S.P. and he should be made liable for ensuring service of the summons on the police witnesses and their appearance in the Court.

Accordingly, exercising the inherent powers of this Court, it is hereby directed that the Director General of Police in furtherance of the Circular dated 8.1.2013 shall ensure that a Nodal Officer preferably not below the rank of Circle Inspector of Police shall be appointed in each district for ensuring service of summons and attendance of police witnesses for giving evidence in the Courts. The trial court concerned shall be authorized to directly forward the summons to such Nodal Officer who shall be responsible to effect service of the summons and ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the Court. In the event of non compliance of the trial court's direction, the Nodal Officer shall be personally liable to face the consequences thereof."

5. However, in the present case, it appears that the directions contained in Ganesh Ram (supra) have not been complied with in their true spirit. The very fact that even warrants of arrest against police officers remain unexecuted demonstrates a gross failure of responsibility.

6. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to summon an explanation from the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, as to (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (5 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] why the officers subordinate to him are consistently failing to discharge their statutory duties and as to why a police officer, despite an arrest warrant, could not be apprehended. The DGP shall specifically indicate in his affidavit:

• Whether the directions in Ganesh Ram (supra) have been duly implemented in letter and spirit;

• If yes, who was the designated Nodal Officer in the concerned district at the relevant time;

• What steps have been taken to ensure compliance of the trial Court's process;

• And why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against the responsible officers for such blatant disobedience of the Court's orders.

7. Shri Deepak Choudhary, learned GA-cum-AAG, shall forthwith communicate this order to the DGP, Rajasthan. The affidavit in compliance be filed on or before the next date of hearing.

8. List the matter on 12.09.2025.

Subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid directions, all affidavits and reports have been placed on record, reflecting diligent compliance. The Court notes with measured satisfaction that:

a) The directives enshrined in Ganesh Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra), mandating the appointment of Nodal Officers to ensure service of summons and attendance of police witnesses, have been scrupulously implemented both in letter and spirit. The circular dated 28.12.2015 and the order dated 06.03.2021 substantiate these measures.

b) The designated Nodal Officer in the district of Churu, as per the relevant period, has been duly identified and his comprehensive compliance report is annexed. The said officer, Shri Lokendra Dadarwal, Additional Superintendent of Police, (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (6 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] has exhibited conscientious adherence to the Court's mandate.

c) The trial Court's summons, warrants, and notices addressed to police witnesses have been executed with utmost punctuality. Returns of service have been furnished and the concerned police officials namely Shri Rajiram (SI), Shri Gopi Ram, and Shri Sarjeet (Constables) have complied with their obligations to appear and depose.

d) Explanations tendered by the police personnel implicated in the earlier non-compliance allegations manifest a genuine commitment to uphold judicial processes. The Court appreciates their unconditional apology for any inconvenience caused.

e) Most notably, the testimony of the aforesaid police witnesses was duly recorded on 07.10.2025 and 08.10.2025, eliminating any plausible ground for claims of non-

cooperation by prosecution witnesses.

6. In light of the foregoing, the Court observes that the accused-petitioner's continued detention is not justified on the grounds of any substantive flight risk, tampering with evidence, or threat to public safety. The prosecution's case, though prima facie serious under the NDPS Act, is counterbalanced by the compliance of the State authorities with the Court's procedural directions and the absence of any concrete adverse factors warranting further custodial interrogation.

61. Henceforth, it shall be incumbent upon the Director General of Police to exercise vigilant oversight over the conduct and efficacy of the designated nodal officers. He must ensure that all processes issued by a competent criminal court are duly (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (7 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] served upon the concerned parties with due dispatch and in strict adherence to prescribed timelines. Meticulous compliance with these directives will not only advance the overarching objective of expeditious adjudication but will also significantly mitigate the risk of inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses; an eventuality that commonly arises due to protracted delays. Such procedural diligence shall, in turn, enhance the court's ability to impose appropriate sanctions upon the culpable and afford rightful exoneration to the innocent, thereby reinforcing the integrity and credibility of the criminal justice system.

8. Turning now to the matter at hand concerning the instant bail application, it is observed that the petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period exceeding two years. Despite the lapse of this considerable duration, a significant number of prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, indicating that the trial is far from nearing conclusion.

8.1. The Court deems it imperative to reiterate that the notion of a 'reasonable period' for the completion of a criminal trial, particularly in cases involving incarceration, ideally envisages disposal within one year. In exceptional circumstances, this timeline may extend to a maximum of two years. However, any detention beyond this threshold, especially in the absence of demonstrable and substantive progress in the proceedings, constitutes an egregious violation of the (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (8 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

8.2. It is axiomatic that the right to a speedy trial is an intrinsic facet of the broader constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and fair trial. The prolonged deprivation of liberty, without the corresponding advancement of adjudicatory processes, results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. The irreversible erosion of one's liberty over lost years particularly without conviction cannot be retrospectively remedied, thereby accentuating the necessity for judicial circumspection and intervention.

8.3. In addition to the inordinate delay in the trial, the petitioner appears to have a prima facie tenable case in respect of non- compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards, specifically the breach of provisions outlined under the Standing Orders No. 1/1989 issued by the Central Government. These pertain to the lawful seizure, sampling, and storage of contraband materials. If, upon due adjudication, these procedural infirmities are established in favour of the petitioner, it may result in his acquittal. 8.4. Admittedly, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, imposes a statutory embargo on the grant of bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic substances. However, this Court is of the considered view that such statutory restrictions cannot override or eclipse the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial.

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (9 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] Where a direct conflict arises between a statutory provision and a constitutional guarantee, it is well-settled that the latter must prevail; thus, infringement of fundamental rights would prevail over the statutory bar.

8.5. Considering the surrounding circumstances including undue delay, potential procedural violations, and absence of trial progression coalesce in favour of the petitioner, the continued incarceration of an individual, without resolution, cannot be countenanced. Judicial conscience dictates that the personal liberty of a citizen cannot be held hostage to indefinite pre- trial detention, especially in the absence of a compelling justification supported by prosecutorial diligence. Therefore, the balance tilts in favour of granting bail, subject to appropriate conditions, to uphold the sanctity of fundamental rights and to prevent the administration of justice from becoming punitive by delay.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./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 161-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:45369] (10 of 10) [CRLMB-10058/2025] (Uploaded on 16/10/2025 at 05:23:31 PM) (Downloaded on 16/10/2025 at 09:34:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur