Allowed

Shahrukh S/O Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2025CRLMB/4069/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three accused held under Sections 8/20, 25 & 29 NDPS Act sought bail after earlier applications were withdrawn. Citing over one-and-a-half years' custody, slow trial with 25 witnesses pending, no criminal antecedents, and alleged Section 42 non-compliance, the court granted bail on personal bonds with conditions including monthly police-station presence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to monthly police-station presence.

Shahrukh S/O Yusuf Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:15908]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶4

4069/2025

¶5

Shahrukh S/o Yusuf, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Lanka Talai Julmi Road, Suket Police Station Suket, District Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jhalawad).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fourth Bail Application No. 3963/2025

¶12

Rahil S/o Abdul Rauf, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Badi Masjid Suket At Present Haat Chouk Suket Thana Suket District Kota Rural, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At District Jail Jhalawar).

¶13

Shadan @ Shaddu S/o Hameed Mohammed, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gali Behind Parkar Hospital Choumehla Thana Gangdhar District Jhalawar Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At District Jail Jhalawar).

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶20

Order

¶21

08/04/2025

¶22

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in

[2025:RJ-JP:15908]

[CRLMB-4069/2025]

(2 of 5)

connection with FIR No.294/2023 registered at Police Station Bakani, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed chargesheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act.

¶27

Previous bail applications of the petitioners herein were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. The testimony of the Seizure Officer has been recorded during the course of trial. Hence, these bail applications have been preferred.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. It is argued that provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as from the Court testimony of the Seizure Officer, it is come out that he acted upon the prior information but he did not reduce the same in writing and also not forwarded the same to the higher police officials. Thus, there is non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since 23.10.2023 and thus, till date, they have served incarceration of more than one and half years and trial will take long time in its conclusion as there are 25 witnesses cited in the list of prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that trial is going at a snail’s pace and the delay occurring in trial is not attributed to the accused petitioners. The rights of the petitioners to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being seriously infringed.

(3 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:15908]

[CRLMB-4069/2025]

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that looking to the huge quantity of the recovered contraband, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail in view of the rigour of section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶33

I have considered the contentions.

¶34

Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶35

Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

¶36

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 23.10.2023, trial will take time in its conclusion as there is a long list of 25 prosecution witnesses; petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents, but without commenting anything

[2025:RJ-JP:15908]

[CRLMB-4069/2025]

(4 of 5)

on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application.

¶41

The second bail application filed on behalf of accusedpetitioner- Shahrukh and fourth bail application filed on behalf of accused-petitioners Rahil & Shadan @ Shaddu are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1)Shahrukh S/o Yusuf, (2) Rahil S/o Abdul Rauf & (3) Shadan @ Shaddu S/o Hameed Mohammed shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶42

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

¶43

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.

[2025:RJ-JP:15908]

[CRLMB-4069/2025]

(5 of 5)

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶48

The observation made herein is only for decision of these bail applications and would not prejudice trial in any manner.

¶49

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶50

LALIT MOHAN /25-26

Shahrukh S/O Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh S/O Yusuf v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Ramhari Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Kant @ Lucky Rana S/O Shri Nandlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Iddi @ Iddar @ Idrish S/O Changa Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar S/O Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Rc Power Project Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Radha Mohan Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Vs State of Raj and Ors.