[2025:RJ-JD:34855]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6323/2025 Govind Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Charliya, Police Station Chhoti Sadri District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail Pratapgarh)

----Petitioner Versus Cbn, Through Cbn ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Nahar, Spl PP for CBN Mr. Gopal Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/08/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. Crime/Complaint Number 9/2021

2. Concerned Police Station CBN, Neemach

3. District Pratapgarh

4. Offences alleged in the Complaint 8/18(b) and 25 of NDPS Act

5. Offences added, if any -

6. Date of passing of impugned order 14.05.2025

2. The first bail applications being SBCRLMB No. 9741/2023 of the petitioner have been dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 22.11.2023. While deciding the earlier bail application, liberty was granted to file a fresh bail application after statement of Recovery Officer is recorded.

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 Special 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 the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. It is pertinent to note that the independent witnesses cited by the prosecution are not residents of the same village as the accused. The accused hails from Charaliya, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh, whereas the said witnesses are residents of Neemach, Madhya Pradesh. During the course of cross-examination, they have categorically admitted that they were neither subjected to any threat, nor placed under fear or faced any manner of danger. Furthermore, although it is alleged that the accused was apprehended along with the contraband, the manner in which the arrest and the subsequent search and seizure proceedings were carried out raises serious doubts. It appears that the said proceedings were not conducted at the place of alleged recovery. The residence of the accused, situated in Charaliya, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Chittorgarh, is stated to be the place from where the contraband was recovered; however, it was subsequently taken to the office of the CBN at Neemach, which is situated at a distance of nearly 30 kilometers from the accused’s residence.

7. Such procedural lapses have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh v. Union Of India, Through CBN (S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 13299/2024). For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-

“6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State Rajasthan proceeded to make search and seizure of an offence committed at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a secret information on 06.01.2024, a joint preventive team from the CBN proceeded to the place of the petitioner and conducted a search of his house, where around 11 quintals of poppy husk came to be recovered and seized as per the usual course of investigation, as it is claimed by the officers. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in p