IMPORTANT POINT
The court granted bail based on the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the lengthy trial process, emphasizing that Section 37 restrictions do not apply in this case.

ORDER :

Rajendra Prakash Soni, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail. He has been arrested for violating the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per FIR No.85/2023 registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh in respect of offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The first application for bail was disposed of without considering the merits of the case since it was not pressed by the petitioner.

3. On the basis of a seizure effected by Sushil Kumar, SHO Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, a formal FIR mentioned above was registered against the accused alleging inter alia that on February 16, 2023, at about 2:40 pm, on the road from Suratgarh to Hanumangarh, near Radha Swami Dera, SHO Sushil Kumar of Pilibanga police station stopped a bus number RJ-31-PA- 4432 during a blockade. It was suspected that some contraband was kept in the bus. Sanjeev @ Sanjay Kumar was driving the bus. Upon being searched, 342 kg of poppy straw was recovered from the luggage box of the bus. Sanjeev @ Sanjay Kumar stated that he and Shishpal had brought this contraband. Shishpal had disembarked along the way.

4. Shri Achala Ram, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of Sanjeev @ Sanjay Kumar, who was driving the bus. The applicant was neither found nor arrested on the spot. He has been implicated to this case solely on the information of co-accused since he was conductor of the bus. He was arrested three days after the incident. The recovered contraband was not exclusively and consciously in his possession. It is also argued that petitioner is innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him; that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner; that case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Whereas, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that these are factual issues which cannot be addressed at this stage and ought to be determined only after trial. The contraband was jointly acquired by both Sanjeev and Shishpal. It was submitted that the Investigating Officer had collected overwhelming evidence in the case which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the accused. Contraband of commercial quantity has been seized form the accused; that the restrictions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act clearly operate against the petitioner. He thus, craves rejection of the petitioner's bail application.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor and carefully perused the entire material available on record.

7. Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be overlooked. Particularly, the fact that petitioner was neither found on the spot nor in possession of the contraband at the time of recovery; that he has been arrested after three days of recovery; that only on the basis of information of co-accused, he has been arraigned as an accused; that such information of the co-accused recorded by a police officer, prima-facie not to be treated relevant for proceeding against any other accused; that the bail rejection order goes to show that he is not involved in any other case under the N.D.P.S. Act; that trial is likely to consume considerable time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in detention for an indefinite period.

8. Hence, in view of above facts and circumstances, this Court feels that the accused has available to him, substantial grounds so as to challenge the prosecution case and also of the