Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Taufiq Ali Bhati S/O Shri Saleem Ali vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:25925]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No.
8426/2026
URN: CRLMB / 15353U / 2026
Taufiq Ali Bhati S/o Shri Saleem Ali, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Ward No. 19, Near Shanichar Temple Khetdi District Jhunjhunu,
Present Residing At Plot No. 15, Lohiya Colony, 200 Feet Bypass,
Nearby National Handloom, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur And Plot No.
253, Boring Road, Raghunatpuri, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur
(Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sikar).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
09/07/2026
1. The fourth bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S.,
arising out of F.I.R. No.12/2020 registered with the Police Station
Special Police Station (S.O.G.), District ATS and SOG for offence
under Sections 8 and 15 of NDPS Act.
2. The first bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.11278/2023 was dismissed by the Court vide order
dated 07.03.2024.
3. The second bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc.
Second Bail Application No.351/2025 was dismissed by the Court
vide order 28.04.2025.
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25925] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-8426/2026]
4. The third bail application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc.
Third Bail Application No.12384/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 27.04.2026.
5. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 03.12.2021 and even after
passing of more than four and a half year, the trial of the case has
not concluded. He further submits that till date only
seventeen(17) prosecution witnesses out of forty two(42), have
been examined. He also submits that after dismissal of the third
bail application vide order dated 27.04.2026, not even a single
witness has been examined. He has placed on record the order-
sheets of the learned trial Court. He further submits that every
citizen has a right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, but in case of the petitioner, he is
languishing in jail for more than four and a half year and looking
to the number of prosecution witnesses, still to be examined, it
will take further long time. He also submits that it is well settled
principle of law that no accused can be allowed to detain in
custody for an indefinite period without there being any
satisfactory progress in the trial of the case.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
fourth bail application and submits that the contraband recovered
from the possession of the petitioner i.e. Poppy Husk, is in huge
quantity and, therefore, in view of the provisions under Section 37
of the NDPS Act, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on
bail
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25925] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-8426/2026]
7. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor
and also perused the material made available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the accused-petitioner is in
custody since 03.12.2021 and till date, only seventeen(17)
prosecution witnesses out of forty two(42), have been examined.
9. Looking to the slow speed of the trial and the fact that
still twenty five(25) more prosecution witnesses are to be
examined, the trial may take a considerable time.
10. It is well settled principle of law that an accused cannot
be continued in custody for an indefinite period and that too for a
slow speed in the trial of the case, without there being any fault
on the part of the accused. It has also been settled in various
judgments that the restrictions as provided under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, does not come in a way for release on bail in case
the accused person is in custody for long for no fault on his part.
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (in Criminal Appeal No.
——/2024) arising out of SLP (Criminal)) No.8781/2024
decided on 9 August 2024, has observed as under:-
34. In this respect, we may also gainfully
refer to one of the recent pronouncements by a
bench of this Court to which one of us (B.R. Gavai,
J.) was a member in the case of Prabir Purkayastha
v. State (NCT of Delhi)4, which reads thus:
“21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty
is the most sacrosanct fundamental right
guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach
upon this fundamental right has been frowned(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25925] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-8426/2026]upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In
this regard, we may refer to following
observations made by this Court in the case of
Roy V.D.v. State of Kerala3:–“7. The life and
liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it
cannot be allowed to be interfered with except
under the authority of law. It is a principle which
has been recognised and applied in all civilised
countries. In our Constitution Article 21
guarantees protection of life and personal liberty
not only to citizens of India but also to aliens.””
38. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement5
was considering an application of the petitioner
therein who was to receive a bribe of rupees five
crore and from whom, an amount of Rs.
46,00,000/- was already recovered. In the said
case, the petitioner was arrested on 26th January
2022 in connection with FIR No. 402/2021
registered against him for the offences punishable
under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and Section
4/6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. He was
released on bail by this Court vide order dated 18 th
January 2023. Thereafter, the petitioner was
arrested by the ED on 21st June 2023. The Court
observed thus:
“7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail in the
instant case, it is pointed out by learned counsel
for ED that the complaint case is at the stage of
framing of charges and 24 witnesses are proposed
to be examined. The conclusion of proceedings,
thus, will take some reasonable time. The
petitioner has already been in custody for more
than a year. Taking into consideration the period
spent in custody and there being no likelihood of
conclusion of trial within a short span, coupled with
the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the
predicate offence, and keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us
that the rigours of Section 45 of the Act can be
suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the
petitioner. Ordered accordingly.”
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Narcotic Control
Bureau Vs. Lakhwinder Singh in Criminal Appeal No.
475/2025 decided on 29.01.2025, has observed as under:-
“While dealing with an extraordinary
situation arising out of the long incarceration of
undertrial prisoners, this Court directed that in(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25925] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-8426/2026]certain cases, the prisoners shall be released on
bail after they complete a certain period of
imprisonment. The directions issued were by way
of a one-time measure. This judgment does not
take away the power of the Court to grant regular
bail even if the period undergone by a prisoner is
less than what is provided in the said judgment.
The judgment of this Court cannot be read to mean
that the powers of the Court to grant bail have
been curtailed. If we interpret the judgment of this
Court in such a manner, the Courts will be
powerless to grant bail or relief of suspension of
sentence even if a case is made out on merits.
Therefore, in our view, if a case is made out for the
grant of suspension of sentence and/or bail in
deserving cases on merits, the Court is not
powerless to grant relief of suspension of sentence
and bail pending an appeal, even if an accused has
not undergone half of the sentence. There cannot
be a rule of thump that a convict cannot be
released on bail pending an appeal against
conviction unless he has undergone half of
substantive sentence.
6. In the case of fixed-term sentence, if the
Courts start adopting a rigid approach, in a large
number of cases, till the appeal reaches the stage
of the final hearing, the accused would undergo the
entire sentence. This will be a violation of the rights
of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Moreover, it will defeat the right of appeal.
7. At this stage, the learned ASG appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the power of the
Court was constrained by Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, which is applicable even at the stage of an
appeal. He relies upon a decision of this Court in
the case of Dadu vs. State of Maharashtra. There is
no dispute about the fact that the Appellate Court
is bound by constraints of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act while considering the prayer for the grant of
bail during the pendency of an appeal. However, if,
in the facts of the case, an accused has undergone
a substantial part of the substantive sentence and,
considering the pendency of criminal appeals, his
appeal is not likely to be heard before the accused
undergoes the entire sentence, the Appellate Court
can exercise the power of 2 (2000) 8 SCC 437
releasing the accused on bail pending the appeal. If
the relief of bail is denied in such a factual situation
only on the grounds of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
it will amount to the violation of the rights of the
accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.”
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25925] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-8426/2026]
13. Hence, taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that the
accused-petitioner is in custody since 03.12.2021; he has already
suffered incarceration for more than four and a half year; till date,
only seventeen(17) prosecution witnesses out of forty two(42)
have been examined and twenty five(25) are yet to be examined
and also taking into consideration the right of life and liberty and
so also the fact that after rejection of the third bail application, not
even a single witness has been examined so far, this Court without
expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case,
deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
14. Accordingly, the fourth bail application is allowed and it
is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction
of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before
that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on
all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
8/ARTI SHARMA
(Uploaded on 17/07/2026 at 05:04:12 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:12 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
