Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19228) on 23 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:19228]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5008/2026
Mahendra Singh S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Bethwasiya Police Station Osian District Jodhpur (At Present
Lodged In Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/04/2026
This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the 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 202/2025
2. Police Station Nimbahera
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act
FIR
5. Offences added, if any -
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner i.e.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13811/2025 was dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court
with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after
recording the statement of the Seizure Officer. Now the statement
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
of the Seizure Officer has been recorded as PW01-Kanhaiya Lal.
Hence, this second bail application has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public
Prosecutor
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
contended that from perusal of statement of PW-1 Kanhaiya Lal, it
has been established that the Seizure Officer was neither posted
as the Station House Officer of the concerned police station nor
did he comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under
Section 57 and Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. This non-
compliance has also been admitted by the Seizure Officer (P.W01)
in his statement recorded before the learned trial court. The
relevant portion is reproduced herein below:
"यह कहना सही है कि थाने पर सीआई पोस्टेड है। पुलिस अधीक्षक चित्तौड़गढ़
महोदय ने रामसुमेर जी मीणा को पोस्टेड एसएचओ लगा रखा था। यह भी सही
है कि पुलिस अधीक्षक चित्तौड़गढ़ ने मुझे रामसुमेर जी मीणा के अधीनस्थ द्वितीय
थानाधिकारी की हैसियत से पदस्थापित कर रखा था। यह कहना सही है कि
1/86 अधिसूचना लागू होती है। यह सही है कि मैं पोस्टेड एसएचओ लगा हुआ
नहीं था। यह सही है कि मैंने 1/86 अधिसूचना ना तो पढ़ी है, ना ही इसकी कोई
जानकारी है। यह सही है कि एनडीपीएस एक्ट में राजस्थान सरकार में कौन
एनडीपीएस के लिए अधिकृत है, उसके लिये 1/86 अधिसूचना लागू की थी। यह
भी सही है कि 1/86 अधिसूचना के तहत मैं पोस्टेड नहीं था।
.....
यह सही है कि पर्चा कायमी मुर्तिब करते समय मेरी उपनिरीक्षक पद की हैसियत
थी। यह सही है कि प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट श्री रामसुमेर मीणा, तत्कालीन पुलिस
निरीक्षक, थानाधिकारी कोतवाली निंबाहेड़ा के द्वारा दर्ज नहीं की गई। यह सही है
कि नतीजा चार्जशीट, सूची गवाहान क्रमांक 18 पर तत्कालीन थानाधिकारी
रामसुमेर मीणा, निरीक्षक का नाम अंकित है। यह सही है कि नतीजा चार्जशीट,
सूची गवाहान क्रमांक 1 पर मेरा पद उपनिरीक्षक के साथ थानाधिकारी व इंचार्ज
थाना दर्शित नहीं है। मेरा पदस्थापन थाना कोतवाली निंबाहेड़ा पर दिनांक
30.01.2025 को उपनिरीक्षक के पद पर हुआ था, उस वक्त एसएचओ श्री
रामसुमेर मीणा ही थे। यह सही है कि घटना दिनांक पर पदस्थापित थानाधिकारी
रामसुमेर जी मीणा ही थे। कोतवाली निंबाहेड़ा पर घटना दिनांक को मैं एक ही
उपनिरीक्षक तैनात था। यह सही है कि राज्य सरकार व पुलिस उच्चाधिकारियों
का कोई आदेश एसएचओ पद पर मेरे पदस्थापन बाबत नहीं हुआ था। यह सही
है कि दिनांक 10.05.2025 को एनडीपीएस की कार्यवाही के लिये अधिकृत
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
करने का कोई उच्चाधिकारियों का आदेश व धारा 41(2) एनडीपीएस एक्ट का
प्राधिकार पत्र मुझे नहीं दिया गया था। यह सही है कि मुझे घटना के दिन
थानाधिकारी नियुक्त करने/थाने का इंचार्ज/प्रभारी बनाने के संबंध में जिला
पुलिस अधीक्षक व राज्य सरकार का कोई आदेश पत्रावली पर नहीं है। यह सही
है कि मेरे द्वारा धारा 57 एनडीपीएस एक्ट की रिपोर्ट एसएचओ के समक्ष पेश
नहीं की गई थी। यह सही है कि थाने का चार्ज लेने व इंचार्ज नियुक्त होने के
संबंध में एसपी साहब व सीओ साहब का आदेश पत्रावली पर नहीं है।
………..
यह सही है कि अवैध मादक पदार्थ की जानकारी व विश्वास होने के पश्चात मेरे
द्वारा धारा 41(1) एनडीपीएस एक्ट की सूचना लिखकर धारा 42(2)
एनडीपीएस एक्ट जरिये अग्रेषण पत्र उच्चाधिकारियों के पास कोई सूचना नहीं
भिजवाई थी। यह सही है कि तत्कालीन एसएचओ की गैरमौजूदगी में जब्ती
कार्यवाही करने पर धारा 42 की सूचना व अनुपालना रिपोर्ट 72 घंटे के भीतर
उच्चाधिकारियों को नहीं भेजी गई।
It is further contended that the alleged recovery of
contraband was effected on 10.05.2025, whereas the samples
were sent to the FSL only on 05.06.2025, after an inordinate and
unexplained delay of 26 days. It is further submitted that Clause
1.13 of Standing Order No. 1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 mandates
that the samples drawn are required to be sent for FSL
examination within 72 hours from the date of recovery.
He also submits that there is no explanation for the delay in
sending the samples to the FSL, and there is a serious chance that
the samples could have been tampered with, replaced, or
contaminated. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to
offer any cogent explanation for this non-compliance. There is also
no material on record to show that, during the intervening period,
the case property and the samples were kept in safe and tamper-
proof custody.
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this
Court towards the statement of the Seizure Officer, recorded
before the learned trial Court, wherein the said officer has himself
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
admitted that there was a delay in sending the sample to the FSL.
The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced hereunder:
यह सही है कि हमने 72 घण्टे के अंदर इस प्रकरण के नमूने व कंट्रोल सेम्पल नहीं
निकाले। इस प्रकरण में सेम्पल 23-24 दिन बाद निकाले थे। घटना दिनांक
10.05.2025 की है व नमूना सेम्पल दिनांक 03.06.2025 को निकाले थे। एफ
एस एल में नमूने मेरे द्वारा नहीं भेजे गये थे। लगभग घटना के 25 दिन बाद सेम्पल
एफ एस एल में भेजे गये थे। अवैध मादक पदार्थ है, इस बारे में मेरे द्वारा किसी
प्रयोगशाला से राय नहीं मांगी। यह सही है कि मौके पर मेरे द्वारा बरामदशुदा
मादक पदार्थ को ड्र ग डिटेक्शन किट से चेक नहीं किया गया था। यह सही है कि
मौके से सीधे एफएसएल में नमूने नहीं भेजे थे।
……….
यह सही है कि न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने मेरे द्वारा प्रत्येक आर्टीकल के नमूना व
कंट्रोल सेम्पल नहीं निकाले थे, न ही सील चिट की थी। यह सही है कि 72 घंटे के
अंदर कोई नमूना सेम्पल नहीं भेजा गया था। 72 घंटे के अंदर नमूना नहीं भेजने
का कोई कारण किसी भी फर्द में नहीं है, न ही ऐसी कोई फर्द बनाई।
It is further submitted that there are additional
procedural lapses under the relevant provisions of Section
50, Section 52, and Section 55, which vitiate the entire
recovery and raise serious doubts and concerns regarding
the alleged 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. It was observed as under:
“3. The petitioners were arrested on 25.09.2023 and have already
undergone incarceration for about one year and ten months.
4. The trial is progressing but is at a nascent stage inasmuch as out
of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there
is violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act inasmuch as the FIR
was lodged on 25.09.2023 but the sample was sent for SLP(Crl.)
No.5648/2025 forensic examination after 24 days on 19.10.2023
whereas the statute requires that such samples be sent within 72
hours of seizure.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
6. The above discrepancy is reflected from Annexure ‘P-2’, the
acknowledgment receipt of the Forensic Laboratory, Rajasthan.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8.
Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners be released on bail
subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the
Trial Court commensurating with the charges(if, any) framed
against them.”
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.
Learned counsel argued that the prosecution seeks to build
its case against the petitioner on the basis of call detail records
reflecting communication between the petitioner and co-accused
Khemsingh, from whom the contraband was allegedly purchased.
However, these records merely establish that communication took
place and do not disclose the substance of the conversation. In
the absence of any call recordings, transcripts, or other
authenticated material evidencing the contents of such
communication, no inference can be drawn to attribute knowledge
of, or participation in, the alleged offence to the petitioner.
Learned counsel draws the attention of this Hon’ble Court to
the fact that the present petitioner had also been enlarged on
interim bail for a period of 25 days, pursuant to which he duly
surrendered.
It is further submitted by learned counsel that out of the
total 18 cited prosecution witnesses, the statement of only 1
witness has been recorded, and the pace of the trial is very slow.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
Learned counsel submitted that the challan has already been
filed; the co-accused person namely Paras Ram and Ibrahim have
been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate benches of this court, passed
in CRLMB 9098/2025 and CRLMB 13812/2025 vide order
dated 25.09.2025, 04.02.2026 respectively; the petitioner has no
criminal antecedent; he has been in custody since 10.05.2025, i.e.
for about more than eleven months as on today and the trial of
the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude;
therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted,
and he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioner
was a co-passenger of the vehicle from which contraband was
recovered; 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 25 days and that the
petitioner has no previous criminal antecedent.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record; at the stage of considering a bail plea pending trial, this
Court is not expected to record any definite opinion or make firm
observations regarding discrepancies or legal defects in the
prosecution case, as doing so may seriously prejudice the
prosecution’s case. At the same time, the Court cannot ignore
non-compliance with mandatory provisions, the failure to follow
the procedure for sampling and seizure, the serious issue
regarding the competence of the seizure officer, and the fact that
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
the accused has remained incarcerated for more than 11 months
pending trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim @
Hussain passed in (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 915
OF 2023) , observed that, while deciding a bail application under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court may not be able to form a definite
opinion that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence;
however, for the limited purpose of just disposal of the bail
application, it may form a tentative view that the material on
record is insufficient to attract the embargo under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
Accordingly, this Court has examined the facts of the case
and the manner in which the proceedings were conducted. If the
surrounding circumstances are inconsistent with the statutory
requirements, the personal liberty of an individual cannot be
curtailed by keeping him in custody for an indefinite period
pending trial.
Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in
absence of sufficient incriminating material available on record,
the court is of the view that the embargo under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act would not stand in the way of granting bail.
Furthermore, considering the challan has already been filed; the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent; only one witness has been
examined out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses, 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.
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19228] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-5008/2026]
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 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 tries 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
30-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 29/04/2026 at 10:20:11 AM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 08:46:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
