Strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential in drug-related offenses, and the failure thereof can undermine prosecution's case and infringe upon personal liberty.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

Facts of the Case

2. The present petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 16/2023 registered at Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, for the alleged offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per the prosecution case, on 17.01.2023, while on routine patrol, the police officials of P.S. Rashmi intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing No. RJ 09 UB 0633 and a pickup vehicle. On noticing the police party, the occupants of both vehicles allegedly fled from the spot. The driver of the Scorpio was identified as Ratanlal Jat, while the driver of the pickup vehicle was identified as Pappu. Upon conducting a search of the pickup vehicle, the police claimed to have recovered 248 kilograms of poppy husk.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid incident and written report, FIR No. 16/2023 came to be registered for offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act, whereupon investigation was set into motion and the present petitioner was arrested and has since remained in judicial custody. The petitioner’s regular bail application was earlier rejected by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases No. 1, District Chittorgarh, vide order dated 20.08.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13496/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed as not pressed on 21.05.2025, with liberty expressly reserved to file a fresh bail application after the recording of statements of prosecution witnesses Manohar and Jagdish. It was also observed that the said witnesses be examined on priority. The statements of the said material prosecution witnesses, Manohar and Jagdish, have now been duly recorded by the learned trial court, thereby satisfying the condition stipulated by this Court. Hence, this second bail application.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his 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-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

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

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. At the outset, it is apposite to note that the petitioner’s earlier prayer for bail was declined primarily in view of the gravity of the allegations and the statutory embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. However, the subse