[2025:RJ-JD:47584]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 13003/2025 Shivlal S/o Dhannalal, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Naswadi, Chota Udaipur, Gujrat, Presently Resident Of Kheda Tanda, Police Station-Arnod, District-Pratapgarh Rajasthan.

( Presently Lodged In District Jail-Churu)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Mr. Rahul Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/11/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number 118/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Bhanipura

3. District Churu

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/18 and

25 of NDPS Act

5. Offences added, if any Section 29 of NDPS Act

6. Date of passing of impugned04.10.2025 order

2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court while giving him a liberty to renew the prayer after statement of the Investigating Officer is recorded in the trial. Now, the Investigation Officer has been examined and a copy of which is placed on record.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and gone through the material.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle which was found involved in transportation of contraband. Nowhere there is any allegation with regard to indulgence of the petitioner in the transportation, rather he has been booked and apprehended for the single reason that he happened to be registered owner of the vehicle. The incident of interception of the vehicle and recovery of contraband occurred on 02.07.2024. The petitioner submitted a copy of the agreement dated 03.06.2023 showing transfer of control and possession to one - Mithun Kumar Meena. It is argued that since the vehicle was under hypothecation, therefore, there was a legal impediment in selling the vehicle and, therefore, the agreement was executed. The agreement is on the stamp papers and duly attested by notary public who verified it on 03.06.2023. The document also affixing of photographs of the parties who made the contractual agreement. When the transfer of control and possession of the vehicle had been handed over by the petitioner to some other person a year back, then fastening criminal liability, that too vicariously on the sole ground of his being a registered owner would not be justified as it is argued and this Court feels force in the above submission. Section 25 of the NDPS Act envisages about criminal liability of the owner of the place or vehicle who knowingly allows the other person to use the place or vehicle for the purpose of doing illegal activity or any activity in contravention of NDPS Act. Knowledge is the crux of Section 25 of the NDPS Act, which means the owner of the place or vehicle must have knowledge about contravention of any provision of NDPS Act. Even if the entire papers submitted by the prosecution through charge- sheet are taken on their face value nowhere from there any material could be traced based on which a safe inference of knowledge of the petitioner with the illegal transportation of the contraband can be drawn. Be that as it may, the above observations are