Mukesh Kumar Bairwa vs State Of Rajasthan

Leave a Comment / Case Summaries / By

Published on: 06th March 2026

Authored by: Charul Rathore
Indore Institute of Law

Introduction

The case of Mukesh Kumar Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:33266) addresses critical aspects of criminal jurisprudence within the framework of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, specifically concerning bail applications. Although the judgment pertains to a bail order, its significance lies in the High Court’s detailed examination of evidentiary standards for confessional statements and the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail.​The ruling offers valuable insights into the balancing act between legislative mandates aimed at curbing drug trafficking and the constitutional right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.​This analysis will explore the court’s reasoning and its broader implications for legal practice under the NDPS Act.

Case Details

Citation:          ​ 2024:RJ-JD:33266

Court and Bench: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, presided over by Hon’ble Mr.                                        

Bench: Justice Farjand Ali.

Date of Judgment: August 8, 2024.

Facts of the Case

The case involves a Civil Writ Petition filed by Mukesh Kumar Bairwa, seeking a directive for the respondents to consider his representation in light of a previous judgment.​The petitioner, Mukesh Kumar Bairwa, aged about 35 years, is a resident of Pachali, Post-Pachala, Tehsil-Uniyara, District Tonk, Rajasthan.​The respondents include the State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Education Department, the Director of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner, and the District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Dholpur, among others. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the issue raised in the writ petition was covered by an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.​5781/2018), decided on May 7, 2022.​The petitioner requested that the respondents be directed to consider his representation based on this prior judgment.

Issues for Determination

The primary issues for determination, as implied by the court’s consideration of the petitioner’s request, revolve around:

  1. Application of Precedent:​Whether the petitioner’s case falls within the purview of the law laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan.
  2. Administrative Consideration:​Whether the competent authority should be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the aforementioned judgment, subject to the veracity of the submissions made in the petition.

Arguments Advanced

  • Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner:​The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by a previous order from a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Honey Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors..​He argued that the respondents should therefore be directed to consider the petitioner’s representation in light of this judgment.
  • Arguments on behalf of the State:​The documents do not explicitly provide arguments advanced by the State of Rajasthan in this specific case.

Judgment of the Court

The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr.​Justice Farjand Ali, disposed of the writ petition without commenting on the merits of the case.​The Court directed the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner. This decision was contingent on the petitioner’s case falling within the purview of the law laid down by the co-ordinate Bench in Honey Singh Chouhan (supra).​The order also stipulated that the respondents are free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition, and only if the averments are found to be correct would the petitioner be entitled to the relief.

While the specific case of Mukesh Kumar Bairwa vs. State of Rajasthan (2024:RJ-JD:33266) did not elaborate on the evidentiary value of co-accused confessions or the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, other judgments by Justice Farjand Ali address these principles in the context of the NDPS Act.​For instance, in the Budhram vs. State of Rajasthan case, Justice Farjand Ali observed that there must be corroboration or support to verify a confession made by a principal accused to the police, emphasizing that a confessional statement alone, without discovery or recovery of another fact, cannot be considered a reliable piece of evidence in isolation. This aligns with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which acts as an exception to Sections 24, 25, and 26, limiting the admissibility of information from an accused in police custody to what is distinctly related to a fact thereby discovered. ​The Privy Council’s decision in Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor (AIR (1947) PC 67) and the Supreme Court’s reiteration in Prabhoo Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR (1963) SC 113) were referenced to support this interpretation.

Regarding Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court in Budhram also considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain V. State (NCT OF DELHI) (Special Leave Petition (CRL.) NO(S).​915 of 2023, order dated March 28, 2023).​This precedent clarified that the impediment under Section 37 is not an absolute bar to granting bail, especially in cases with undue delays in trial conclusion.​The Supreme Court emphasized that the conditions under Section 37-that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is “not guilty of such offence” and not likely to commit any offense while on bail-require a reasonable interpretation, as a literal interpretation would effectively deny bail altogether, leading to punitive and unsanctioned preventive detention.​Therefore, a prima facie determination of “not guilty” based on the material on record is acceptable. ​The Ramzan vs. State of Rajasthan case further highlighted that non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding sample collection in the presence of a Magistrate can render FSL reports inadmissible, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case and potentially allowing for bail despite Section 37.

Ratio Decidendi

The core legal principles established or reinforced by the High Court in related judgments, particularly concerning the NDPS Act, are:

Inadmissibility of Uncorroborated Confessional Statements:​Information in the form of a confession received from an accused’s disclosure in isolation cannot be considered a reliable piece of evidence unless there is a discovery, recovery, or another fact to corroborate the information and prove its veracity.​Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 24, 25, and 26, but its admissibility is limited to what is specifically envisaged in the statute, requiring a distinct relationship between the information and the fact discovered.

Reasonable Satisfaction Under Section 37 NDPS Act:​The stringent conditions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which require the court to be reasonably satisfied that the accused is “not guilty” and unlikely to commit another offense, must be interpreted reasonably and not literally.​This allows for a prima facie determination of guilt based on the available material, especially when there are undue delays in the trial, acknowledging that a literal interpretation would lead to an effective denial of bail.

Procedural Compliance under NDPS Act:​Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements, such as sample collection in the presence of a Magistrate under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, can significantly impact the admissibility of evidence (e.g., FSL reports), potentially weakening the prosecution’s case and influencing bail decisions.

Critical Analysis

The High Court’s pronouncements, exemplified by the Budhram and Ramzan cases, reflect a nuanced approach to bail jurisprudence under the NDPS Act, aiming to strike a balance between legislative strictness and constitutional safeguards.​This approach is crucial for upholding the principles of natural justice and protecting personal liberty.

Protection of Personal Liberty under Article 21:​The reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty, particularly against prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial.​The interpretation that Section 37’s conditions should not lead to punitive or unsanctioned preventive detention is a direct affirmation of Article 21’s mandate. This ensures that even in serious offenses under special laws like the NDPS Act, the liberty of citizens is balanced against public interest.

Limits on Police Reliance on Confessional Statements:​The emphasis on the inadmissibility of uncorroborated confessional statements made to the police aligns with well-established principles of criminal law, particularly Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.​The requirement for corroboration, as highlighted by references to Pulukuri Kotayya and Prabhoo, prevents convictions based solely on potentially coerced or unreliable confessions.​This serves as a vital check on police power and reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Balancing NDPS Strictness with Constitutional Safeguards: ​The court’s willingness to grant bail despite the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act demonstrates an effort to balance the legislative intent behind the Act- to combat drug trafficking- with the constitutional rights of the accused.​By interpreting Section 37 reasonably, especially in cases of undue trial delays or procedural lapses, the court ensures that the law is applied fairly and does not result in arbitrary detention.​The consideration of non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding sample collection is another example of this balancing act, ensuring that the prosecution adheres to mandatory procedures.

Consistency with Existing Supreme Court Jurisprudence: The High Court’s decisions are consistently guided by Supreme Court pronouncements, particularly Mohd Muslim @ Hussain V. State (NCT OF DELHI) and Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha.​This adherence ensures judicial discipline and uniformity in the application of legal principles across different levels of the judiciary.​The repeated citation of these landmark cases reinforces the principle that while the NDPS Act is a special statute, it must still operate within the constitutional framework, particularly concerning the right to personal liberty.

Broader Implications for Future NDPS Bail Matters: These judgments have significant implications for future NDPS bail matters.​They provide a clear directive for lower courts to scrutinize the evidentiary value of confessional statements more rigorously and to consider trial delays and procedural non-compliance when applying Section 37 of the NDPS Act. This could lead to a more just and equitable application of bail provisions, preventing prolonged pre-trial detention based on insufficient evidence or procedural flaws.​It also encourages law enforcement agencies to adhere strictly to procedural guidelines during investigation and evidence collection.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s judgments, particularly those delivered by Justice Farjand Ali, demonstrate a critical engagement with the complexities of the NDPS Act and its intersection with fundamental rights.​By emphasizing the need for corroboration of confessional statements and a reasonable interpretation of Section 37’s bail conditions, the court reinforces crucial safeguards against arbitrary detention and ensures adherence to due process.​The consistent application of Supreme Court precedents in these matters underscores a commitment to upholding personal liberty while addressing the seriousness of offenses under the NDPS Act.​These rulings are significant judicial pronouncements that will undoubtedly influence the landscape of NDPS bail jurisprudence, fostering a more equitable and constitutionally compliant approach to such cases.

REFERENCES

Related Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Subscribe
Scroll to Top