Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Balwant Alias Balwant Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14610) on 28 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14610]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 767/2026
Balwant @ Balwant Singh S/o Shri Bapu Lal, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Gandher Police Station And District
Pratapgarh
(At Present Lodged In District Jail Pratapgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
28/03/2026
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner who has been arrested in
the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
1. FIR Number 305/2025
2. Police Station Pratapgarh
3. District Pratapgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 & 29 of NDPS
Act & 3 & 25 of Arms Act
5. Offences added, if any –
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9906/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to
the petitioner to file fresh bail application after filing of the charge-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:42:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14610] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-767/2026]
sheet. Now the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, this second
application for bail has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the recovery has been affected from an abandoned
vehicle. The petitioner was connected in this case only on the
basis of statement of co-accused Sunder Lal the person who was
escorting the vehicle. It is further submitted that the alleged
recovery of contraband was stated to be affected on 05.07.2025
whereas same were sent for the FSL on 07.10.2025, after an
inordinate and unjustified delay of almost three months. He has
also submitted that Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988
dated 15.03.1988, mandates that samples drawn ought to have
been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from recovery.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan (SLP
(Crl.) No. 5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 5732/2025),
decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the
delay and lack of substantive evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wajid Ali @
Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal
No.7049/2025) decided on 09.02.2026.
It is further submitted that the challan has already been
filed; the petitioner is in custody since 06.07.2025; the trial of the
case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude;
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:42:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14610] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-767/2026]
therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted,
and the benefit of bail deserves to be granted.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioner is
having criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, therefore, he
may not be enlarged on bail. However, he is not in a position to
refute the fact that the FSL samples were sent after an inordinate
delay of about three months.
In counter to the submission, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the criminal antecedents are prior
to 2019 and in these cases, the petitioner has already been
enlarged on bail.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record; considering Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988
dated 15.03.1988, which mandates that samples drawn ought to
have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from
recovery; the challan has already been filed; the petitioner has
remained in custody since 06.07.2025; and that the trial of the
case will take sufficient long time to conclude; without expressing
any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
in any other case, provided applicant furnishes a personal bond of
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:42:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 04:32:07 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14610] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-767/2026]
Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that
court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till completion of the trial.
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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
168-Ramesh/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:42:30 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/03/2026 at 04:32:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
