The court emphasized that serious charges under the NDPS Act require careful consideration, and merits should not be prejudged at the bail stage.

Order :

1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.104/2024, registered at Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/22, 8/18 and 25 of NDPS Act.

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

3. As per the prosecution, on 16.03.2024, A.S.I. Nagendra Singh alongwith other police officials, during nakabandi near Ghadseesar Fanta Jodhpur Bypass flagged down one Swift car bearing registration No.RJ-14-CT-5145. The co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki was sitting on the wheel of the offending vehicle whereas the petitioner- Shivraj was sitting beside him. On suspicion that they possessed some prohibited substance in the vehicle, the police team after following the procedure provided under the NDPS Act searched the vehicle whereupon, contraband MDMA weighing 95 gms. and contraband opium weighing 1 kg. in 2 plastic bags were recovered from the dashboard of the offending vehicle. The petitioner- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki in their statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, divulged the information that they had procured the contraband (MD) from the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi R/o Marudhar Colony, Nagaur.

4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsels submitted that the petitioners did not possess the contraband rather the alleged contraband was planted on the petitioners for the reason that they had refused to comply with the extortion demand of money made by the police officials. Learned counsels submitted that no recovery as alleged has been effected from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner-Shivraj. Even the petitioner- Dilip Vishnoi has no role to play in commission of the alleged crime.

5. The counsels further asserted that the aforestated unlawful action of the police officials was captured on CCTV cameras installed near the house of the co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki. Learned counsels submitted that a careful analysis of the footages captured by CCTV cameras at the relevant time would indicate that the petitioner- Shivraj and the co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki were apprehended by the police team from the house of Omprakash @ Pinki at about 05:45 pm., whereas as per the prosecution, the contraband was allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners- Shivraj and Dilip Vishnoi at about 07:30 pm., from a Swift car bearing registration No.RJ- 14-CT-5145. Learned counsel contended that as a matter of fact, news with regard to arrest of petitioner- Shivraj and co-accused- Omprakash @ Pinki was flashed by the news channels at about 07:00 pm., i.e. much before the time of their arrest as mentioned by the police in the challan papers and other documents. To substantiate this contention, learned counsels drew attention of the Court towards the CCTV footages enclosed with the present bail applications.

6. The learned counsels further stated that the family members of the petitioners have submitted representations to the higher police officials ventilating their grievances and pleading therein to take action against the erring police officials but of no avail. The learned counsels contended that surprisingly when the police was asked to analyze the footages of the CCTV cameras installed by the police at various places of the city, from Abhay Command Centre/ICC, Bikaner, it was found that the CC