Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jagdish vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19180) on 16 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:19180]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10675/2025
Jagdish S/o Poonmaram, Aged About 35 Years, Jambhoji Ka
Mandir Kabuli Ps Dhorimana District Badmer (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Barmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr.Robin Singh
Mr. Vishal Sharma
Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bisnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/04/2026
1. The matter comes upon an application (IA No.1/26) for
modification in the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by this Court in
the instant bail application. The application stands disposed of as
the matter is being finally heard and decided in the following
manner:
1.1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 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. FIR Number 400/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Dhorimanna 3. District Barmer 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 8/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(2 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
6. Date of passing of impugned –
order
2. The concise facts of the case as per the First Information
Report are that on 03.12.2022, Sukhram, accompanied by the
police party, proceeded from the police station for local and
Special Act enforcement proceedings and reached the territorial
limits of Meethra. During the course of such patrol, a secret
informer furnished intelligence, whereupon the police party, acting
in accordance with law, proceeded to the agricultural field situated
near Jambhoji Temple, allegedly belonging to Jagdish. There, near
a hut constructed in the field, one man was noticed standing. He
was identified by Constable Jagaram as Jagdish. Upon noticing the
police contingent, the said person allegedly fled from the spot.
Thereafter, in compliance with statutory procedure, the police
conducted a search near the hut and allegedly discovered ten
plastic sacks concealed beneath a heap of fodder/stalks,
containing poppy husk (Doda Post). Upon weighment, the
aggregate quantity was found to be 179.165 kilograms. It is
further alleged that the said contraband was in the conscious
possession of Jagdish, who was unable to produce any valid
licence or permit authorising possession thereof. Consequent
thereto, requisite seizure and spot proceedings were undertaken,
and the present case came to be registered, whereafter
investigation commenced. The petitioner was arrested on
18.03.2025. His first bail application being SBCRLMB
No.8168/2025 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(3 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
order dated 09.07.2025 with liberty to file fresh bail application
after filing of challan. Hence, the instant bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant-accused, reiterating the
grounds set forth in the bail application, contended that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It was urged
that no further custodial interrogation or recovery remains
pending from the applicant and that no contraband substance was
recovered from his personal possession. It was further submitted
that the matter is still under investigation and both investigation
and trial are likely to consume considerable time. The applicant
has remained in continuous judicial custody since 18.03.2025.
Hence, prayer has been made for enlarging the applicant on bail.
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.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. Before
proceeding further, it would be apt to reproduce the order dated
30.10.2025, which is as under:-
1. The present 2nd bail application has been filed under
Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who is in
judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. –
400/2022, P.S. – Dhorimana, Dist. – Barmer for the
offence under Sections – 8/15 of NDPS Act .
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned P.P. present on behalf of the State. Perused
the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(4 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
3. Noticing the cavalier manner of investigation on
27.10.2025 this court passed the following order-
1. A rather bizarre situation has emerged in the
present case, wherein it is alleged that on
03.12.2022, a police team led by Sub-Inspector
Sukhram reached an open agricultural field, from
where certain quantity of poppy husk was recovered.
The foundation and substratum of the allegations, as
revealed from the FIR, Seizure Memo, and charge-
sheet, indicate that a person was seen by the police
team fleeing from the spot of occurrence, and one of
the team members, Constable Jagram, identified that
person to be the present applicant. The sole piece of
evidence implicating the applicant happened to be the
statement of Constable Jagram as per the seizyre
memo and FIR.
2. The seizure was effected on 03.12.2022,
whereas the statement of Constable Jagram came to
be recorded only on 16.03.2025. When queried as to
whether Constable Jagram was not present in the
country during the intervening period from
03.12.2022 to 16.03.2025, no satisfactory
explanation was furnished. Sub-Inspector Sukhram,
the seizing officer, and Bagruram, who conducted the
investigation, have remained silent in response. The
statement of ASI Laduram Bishnoi, also a member of
the team, was recorded on 16.03.2025. Nowhere in
the seizure memo, Parchakayami, or during the
preliminary investigation he made any claim
regarding the identity of the petitioner. Astonishingly,
after a lapse of nearly three years, his statement
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in
which he claimed to have identified the applicant as
the person who fled away from the spot. Why this fact
was not mentioned on the papers prepared on the
day of seizure. Both circumstances are highly
untoward and strange. The NDPS Act often called as a
draconian legislation due to the stringent provisions of
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(5 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
punishment prescribed for contravention of its
provisions. In the present case, the minimum
sentence is ten years of rigorous imprisonment. Such
a callous, casual, and unscrupulous act on the part of
the police officers cannot be condoned. In my view, if
such a conduct is allowed, it would always pose a
serious risk to the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The fulcrum of the accusation against the petitioner is
the statement of these two witnesses who allegedly
saw him on the spot, and if it is so; the things above
must have been incoporated in the Parcha Kayami
Report itself.
3. In the interest of justice, it would be expedient
to direct the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, to
furnish an affidavit regarding the discrepancies
referred to above. He is expected to appear before
this Court along with the affidavit on the next date of
hearing.
3.1 Surendra Choudhary, CI, shall also remain
present on the next date of hearing and is required to
furnish an affidavit explaining why the statements of
the aforementioned two officers, Constable Jagram
and ASI Laduram Bishnoi, were recorded after an
extraordinary delay.
3.2 Both the Inspectors who are present today shall
also appear on the next date of hearing.
4. List the matter on 30.10.2025.”
4. In pursuance of the directions passed above, the
Superintendent of Police, District Barmer, is present
before this Court. It has been apprised that he has duly
acknowledged the callous, perfunctory, and highly
negligent manner in which the investigation was
conducted by the erring police officials in the present
case. He has further assured this Court that
appropriate disciplinary proceedings have already been
initiated against such officers and that the same shall
be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with
law.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(6 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
5. This Court cannot overlook the disturbing
investigative deficiencies which have come to light. The
entire record reveals that despite the allegation
relating to recovery of a commercial quantity of
contraband, the investigation is marred with glaring
lapses. The statement forming the very foundation
against the present petitioner was recorded after an
inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly three years.
It is also noteworthy that the said A.S.I., who has now
claimed to have identified the petitioner as the person
who fled from the spot, was neither cited nor shown as
a member of the raiding or seizing team in any of the
contemporaneous documents prepared on the date of
the incident, such as the seizure memo, parcha qaymi,
F.I.R., the report under Section 42, or even the report
under Section 57 of the NDPS Act.
6. The introduction of such a police witness for the
first time after a lapse of three years appears highly
improbable and prima facie casts a serious shadow on
the fairness and authenticity of the investigation. The
conduct of the investigating officials, therefore, not
only exhibits sheer negligence but also gives rise to a
reasonable apprehension of fabrication and
afterthought. This Court observes that it is indeed a
matter of grave concern that while on one hand the
police claim to have effected a seizure of contraband,
on the other, the same agency through such delayed
and deficient investigation extends unintended benefit
to the accused.
7. The Superintendent of Police has assured that
stringent departmental action has already been set in
motion against the erring officers and that such inquiry
would be completed expeditiously. This Court,
however, remains anxious to know the nature and
progress of such disciplinary proceedings and makes it
clear that no formality or perfunctory exercise shall be
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(7 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
tolerated in the name of inquiry. The matter is,
therefore, directed to be listed on 05.12.2025 for the
next course of action and for submission of a progress
report regarding the disciplinary proceedings.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances,
where the petitioner’s alleged involvement rests solely
upon a belated and shaky identification made by a
police official after three years of the incident, this
Court finds that continued incarceration of the
petitioner until the outcome of the inquiry would be
wholly unjustified. Prima facie, such belated
statements, especially when emanating from police
personnel and unsupported by contemporaneous
records, appear highly doubtful and create a situation
of serious uncertainty about the veracity of the
prosecution version.
9. This Court is conscious that the right to consider
bail necessarily encompasses within its fold the power
to grant interim bail, particularly in cases where
investigative irregularities have been prima facie
established and where the disciplinary inquiry is yet to
culminate.
10. Accordingly, as an interim measure, it is directed
that the petitioner be released on interim bail for a
period of 50 (Fifty) days from the date of his actual
release, while keeping the bail application pending. The
petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of
₹1,00,000/- and one surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, undertaking to
surrender himself before the concerned Jail
Superintendent on the 50th day from his release
without fail.
11. The Superintendent of Police, Barmer, is further
directed to produce before this Court on the next date
the original daily rojnamcha entry of 03.12.2022, along
with the concerned officer who made such entry.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(8 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
12. The matter shall be listed on 05.12.2025 for
further consideration and for perusal of the report
regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
erring officials and for further hearing of the parties on
regular bail.
13. The final order of the bail shall be passed
whereafter.
14. List on 05.12.2025.”
The Court has been informed that, following further
internal review led by the Superintendent of Police, a
departmental assessment was undertaken by the competent
authorities. This process revealed that certain officials were
responsible for lapses in the discharge of their duties. As a
result, formal disciplinary action was commenced against them,
culminating in the imposition of penalties in accordance with
service rules.
6. In this view of the matter and looking to high probability
that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these
developments, it has been contended that the applicant’s
continued detention is unwarranted and that the circumstances
justify the grant of bail.
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.
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
(9 of 9) [CRLMB-10675/2025]
8. 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/she 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/her appearance
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
c-1 mamta/-
(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 02:52:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/04/2026 at 08:32:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
