HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9726/2024 Shaitanram S/o Shri Shri Girdhariram, R/o Godaron Ki Dhani, Khabda Khurd, Tehsil Osiya, Jodhpur.

(Confined At Central Jail Ajmer).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9764/2024 Vijesh S/o Shri Munnaram, R/o Anwana, Tehsil Baavdi, District Jodhpur. (Confined At Central Jail, Ajmer).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka for Mr. Sumit Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP assisted by Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. Govt. counsel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

26/09/2024 The instant bail applications have been filed under Section

483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.14/2023 registered at Police Station Mangliywas, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/18 of NDPS Act.

It is pleaded in the bail applications that co-accused Anwar Khan has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 14.06.2024 passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6893/2024 and petitioners’ case is on better footing from him, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is also pleaded in the bail application that petitioners are in judicial custody since long and challan has been filed and trial of the case may take considerable time. It is also mentioned in the bail application that provisions of Section 42, 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act were not adhered, therefore, bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications.

It is contended that first bail application of petitioners were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 on merits. It is also contended that thereafter there is no change in circumstances. It is also argued that from the petitioners’ possession commercial quantity of 50.250Kg of opium was recovered from the hidden box of the vehicle and petitioners were found in the vehicle. The case of Anwar Khan who has been enlarged on bail is entirely different from the present petitioners. It is alleged against the Anwar Khan that he being the owner of the vehicle (trolla) knowingly transported the said quantity of opium. It is also contended that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground to dilute conditions enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. There is prima facie enough evidence, against the petitioners, regarding their involvement in the said offence, the matter of non-compliance under Section 42 and 52-A of the NDPS Act pertains to trial and cannot be looked into while deciding the bail application, therefore, considering the mandate provided under Section 37 of the NDPS, bail application of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

Heard and perused the material available on record.

The first bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2024 on merits and it was observed by the Court that from the possession of the petitioners commercial quantity of 50.250Kg of opium was made. The petitioners cannot claim parity from the other co-accused Anwar who has been enlarged on bail as the allegation against the petitioners and the co-accused who was enlarged on bail, are entirely different. It is alleged against the petitioners that they were carrying commercial quantity of opium in vehicle whereas co-accused Anwar Khan was enlarged on bail under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. As far as non-compliance of Section 52-A and 42 of the NDPS Act are concerned they are purely question of trial and cannot seen while deciding the bail application further delay in trial itself not a ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NCB Vs. Mohit Aggarwal 2022 SCC online SC 891, has categorically opined that mandate enshrined under Section 37 of the