The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the twin conditions are satisfied, especially in cases involving large quantities of contraband.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.230/2024 registered at Police Station Padu Kalan, Dist. Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, SHO, P.S. Padu Kalan upon receiving a reliable information conducted nakabandi on the highway. During nakabandi, the police flagged down one truck bearing registration No.RJ-17-GA-6991. The police after following the procedure provided under NDPS Act, conducted a search of the offending vehicle and recovered contraband (ganja) weighing 1547.55 kgs. The driver of the offending vehicle and the co-passenger namely Pooran Maldangi and Dilip Singh respectively were arrested on the spot.

4. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the co-accused persons informed the police officials that the recovered contraband was loaded in the offending vehicle at the instance of present petitioner i.e Raghuraj @ Bantu from Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh). It was contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons from whose conscious possession, the contraband was recovered in the present case, there is no other direct/corroboratory evidence available on record indicating his involvement in commission of the alleged crime. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation against him has already been completed; and trial against him is not likely to be concluded in the near future, and therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, a huge quantity of contraband (Ganja) has been recovered from the offending vehicle and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail particularly, when he has failed to show violation of any mandatory provisions of NDPS Act in the present case and as to how such violation has resulted in prejudice caused to him. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that no case for grant of bail exists, particularly keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

6. Having considered the rival submissions facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that in the present case, the offending vehicle was intercepted by the police team upon receiving a reliable information; contraband (ganja) weighing 1547.55 kgs. which is above commercial quantity was found concealed in the offending vehicle; the driver and the co- passenger of the offending vehicle at the time of the recovery had informed the police officials that the recovered contraband was loaded in the offending vehicle on being asked by the present petitioner; during course of investigation, the petitioner has identified the place where the contraband was loaded by him in the offending vehicle at Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.

7. In the opinion of this Court, the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act not satisfied in the present case. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

8. Consequently, the present bail application is rejected.