The court reinforced that under the NDPS Act, the burden lies on the accused to demonstrate a lack of guilt for bail eligibility, particularly in serious drug offenses.

ORDER

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.304/2020, Police Station Bap, District Jodhpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

2. According to the prosecution, contraband of 34 boxes containing 20,400 Tramadol Hydrochloride 100mg tablets were recovered from co-accused Joginder Singh by the SHO, P.S. Baap on 10.12.2020 during nakabandi, being transported in Bus No. RJ-19 PB-6767. Joginder Singh in his information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that he got the contraband from Vikas and Gordhan. Thereupon, Vikas s/o Shankar Lal, in his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the petitioner through his mobile no. 7665076311 called him at his mobile no. 9579013982 stating that his old buyer, Joginder Singh (mobile no. 7347299660) will be coming to Phalodi to purchase the contraband. Vikas s/o Shankar Lal and Madan alias Kaju s/o Omprakash, on being asked by the present petitioner made WhatsApp calls for arranging the contraband from Mangi Lal s/o Kanwar Lal and sold/handed the same over to coaccused Joginder Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of co-accused (Vikas s/o Shankar Lal) without any corroboratory evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Investigating Officer (Rakesh Khayalia, C.I.) in statements before the court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Phalodi, District Jodhpur stated that no sim card or mobile was recovered from Vinod. Learned counsel submitted that as per the Investigating Officer, the certified CDR and CIF ID of mobile no. 7665076311 along with 65-B certificate were not available on record. It was vehemently urged that in there is hardly any evidence to implicate the petitioner in the present case. The accused petitioner is in custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation, it has been established that the contraband was supplied to Joginder Singh by co-accused Vikas s/o Shankar Lal, Madan alias Kaju and Mangi Lal, on a demand raised by the petitioner. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has gathered evidence against the petitioner clearly implicating him in the present case. It was further submitted that the investigation in the matter was conducted by the previous Investigating Officer (Suresh, C.I.) whose statements are yet to be recorded by the competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that call details and Section 65-B certificate were produced under the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel also submitted that the charge-sheet against co-accused Joginder Singh and Vikas were filed by the previous Investigating Officer. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner used the mobile phone registered in the name of his father Shankar Lal. Lastly, it was submitted that, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted to the facts of the present case and there is hardly any ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him or that he is not likely to commit any such offence, if he is enlarged on bail. Learned public prosecutor thus prayed that the present bail application be rejected.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. Admittedly, co-accused Vikas s/o Shankar Lal in his information under Section 27 has named the petitioner. The Investigating Officer (Rakesh Khayalia) in statements before the competent criminal court on being questioned about call details and certificate required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act though has stated that the