Bail is a rule at the pre-conviction stage, and denial should be an exception, especially when evidence against the accused is lacking.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application(s) under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 28.08.2023 SHO Rajnish Kumar along with his team during patrolling the driver and two others of Pick-Up bearing registration RJ20-GB8521 on seeing the police party tried to fled away but were apprehended and disclosed their names as Chouthmal, Tufan and Mukesh Gurjar (Driver). Upon being search, 16 bags weighing 304.4 Kg poppy husk came to be recovered. On the basis of the above, after search and seizure, they were arrested and a case under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act got registered. The first and second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.3277/2024 & 10244/24 (Tufan) & came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 09.04.2024 & 05.11.2024.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. Though the petitioners were present in the vehicle which was intercepted by the police and from which contraband came to be recovered, but the fact cannot be ignored that there is a plea of their innocence and non-acquaintance of presence of contraband in the vehicle. On earlier two occasions, bail applications were dismissed by this Court, owing to the nature of the offense and the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but liberty was given to him to renew the prayer after the statement of Investigating Officer is recorded in the trial, who has now been examined. Prabhu Lal PW1 conducted investigation in the matter and when put to the cross-examination; at internal Page No.3, he admits that during investigation he found nothing suggesting involvement of the petitioners along with Mukesh Gurjar. His explicit admission that only accused Mukesh and Sawanta were having knowledge of the contraband; in the vehicle cannot be ignored. When the liberty of an individual is on stake, this Court has made further observance when gone through the statement of Rajnish PW2, the Police Inspector who inspected seizure of the contraband. At internal Page No.3, he admitted in cross- examination that the vehicle carrying contraband put on stop at one place, and he, who was chasing vehicle reached at this spot after 15 minutes. As per him, the person who was driving the vehicle had fled away, but two people were present i.e. the petitioners. It is argued that had the petitioners having knowledge of presence of contraband in the vehicle, if so, then they may have also fled away from the scene before reaching of the Police Inspector. The submission seems to be luring and worth considerable because in ordinary human conduct there is a spike in the beard of a thief. When the petitioners saw the driver of the vehicle leaving car and running from the clutches of the police, at that moment, the petitioners may have also endeavored for making their escape good, but they did not do so, therefore, prima facie, the argument that