Saturday, 7 November 2026
Rajasthan High Court
NDPS Act

FSL Report Withheld for Months, Police Letter Overwritten: Rajasthan High Court Grants Third Bail, Orders Inquiry

Prem Dudi v. State of Rajasthan 2026:RJ-JP:45591 Decided 5 November 2026

Published: · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Prem Dudi v. State of Rajasthan (2026:RJ-JP:45591), the Rajasthan High Court granted a third bail to a 23-year-old accused under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act after finding that the FSL report, collected by the police in February 2026, had been kept off the charge-sheet and that a police letter produced to explain the delay had been overwritten to mislead the Court (paras 12-16, 19). It ordered a police inquiry and a 15-day limit for FSL reports to reach police stations (paras 22-23).

FSL Report Withheld for Months, Police Letter Overwritten: Rajasthan High Court Grants Third Bail, Orders Inquiry

Judgment Intelligence

Bail Granted
Prem Dudi v. State of Rajasthan
2026:RJ-JP:45591
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 17322/2026
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
5 November 2026
Bench
Justice Ravi Chirania
Relevant Acts & Sections
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8 and 22; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 483
Final Outcome

Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs 50,000, to stand cancelled if he is found involved in another NDPS case. The Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, must report on the inquiry within four months; compliance is listed on 3 March 2027 (paras 19-25).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 5 November 2026

Key holdings

  1. The police letter of 26 August 2026 was prepared by overwriting its dates to mislead the Court (paras 7, 15).
  2. The FSL report, collected on 16 February 2026, was kept off the charge-sheet for months (paras 12-16).
  3. With no antecedents, recovery from another person and a long trial ahead, the third bail was granted (paras 18-19).
  4. The Commissioner of Police must inquire into the officers concerned and ensure FSL reports reach police stations within 15 days (paras 22-23).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 0804/2025 of Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur, under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act; his first two bail applications were rejected on 13 March and 24 April 2026 (paras 1-2). His counsel said the charge-sheet of 11 March 2026 was filed without the FSL report of 27 January 2026, which named the substance as Mephedrone although the FIR recorded Methamphetamine (para 3). The Public Prosecutor first said the report reached the Investigating Officer only in August 2026 (para 4). The Court summoned the Investigating Officer, who produced a letter dated 26 August 2026, and then the DCP (South) and an FSL official (paras 5-6).

Court's Findings

The DCP (South) told the Court that the letter was forged, its dates overwritten to show no delay, and that the constable who carries documents for the police station had received the report in time but had not placed it before the SHO who filed the charge-sheet; the constable was suspended (paras 7-8). On the FSL official's account, the report was collected on 16 February 2026 and recorded at the police station (paras 12-13). The Court held that the letter was prepared by overwriting to mislead it, and that the report, concealed for almost six to seven months, was neither filed with the charge-sheet nor placed before the trial court, obstructing the earlier bail hearings and the trial; as NDPS bail applications are usually not entertained without the FSL report, this was serious (paras 15-16). It was not convinced that a constable acting as a messenger would do this on his own (para 17). Noting no criminal antecedents, a recovery made from another person and a long trial ahead, it observed that prima facie he appeared to have been falsely implicated but declined to comment on the merits, and granted bail (paras 18-19).

Legal Principle

When the police keep an available FSL report off the charge-sheet and away from the court hearing an NDPS bail plea, the concealment weighs in favour of bail on a successive application, and the court may direct an inquiry into the officers responsible and set a time limit for collecting forensic reports (paras 15-18, 22-23).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order cites no decision and does not discuss Section 37 of the NDPS Act: it records the Public Prosecutor's objection that the substance was still commercial in nature but does not rule on quantity (para 10). Bail rests on the FSL report kept off the charge-sheet, the petitioner's clean record, the recovery from another person and the likely length of the trial (paras 15-18). Where a report is missing from a charge-sheet, this order shows the value of asking the court to call for the FSL's dispatch record and the police station's receipt register (paras 12-13). Compare Dheeraj Singh Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, where the FSL's finding on a seized drug also weighed in favour of bail.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt