Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jasveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9096) on 18 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:9096]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 1452/2026
Jasveer Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Har
Raypur P.s Nehiyanwala District Bhatinda, Punjab (Lodged In
Dist. Jail Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangilal Vishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
18/02/2026
This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483
BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.68/2023 registered at Police Station
Bhanipura, District Churu, for offences under Sections 8/15, 25
and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution,
during routine patrolling, on 18.03.2023, a team of Police Station
Bhanipura apprehended a vehicle bearing registration No.PB-10-
ES-7130 being driven by the petitioner and on search being made,
a contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 1 Qntl. 50 Kgs was
recovered. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
18.03.2023. He further submitted that till date, out of total 17
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:07:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:52:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9096] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1452/2026]
cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution witnesses have
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 2 years 11 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 2 years 11 months, out of total 17 cited
prosecution witnesses, only 5 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 2 years 11 months
and out of total 17 cited prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:07:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:52:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9096] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1452/2026]
witness have been examined till date, 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 third bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Jasveer Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh shall be enlarged
on bail in connection with FIR No.68/2023 registered at Police
Station Bhanipura, District Churu, 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
204-Himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 18/02/2026 at 06:07:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:52:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
