[2025:RJ-JD:53972]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10366/2025

Raju Alias Radheshyam S/o Ratanlal Khatik, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Khor P.s Shambhupura District Chittorgarh (At Present

Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

O RDER

15/12/2025

1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 BNSS preferred on behalf of the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.104/2024 registered at Police Station Shambhupura, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections

8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution case, on 23.06.2024, during routine nakabandi, the SHO, Police Station Shambhupura, flagged down one motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-09-CS-1381. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed his name as Raju Khatik (present petitioner). In the meanwhile, a Swift car bearing registration No. HR-26-CP- 5381, which was driving behind the aforesaid motorcycle, suddenly stopped and, upon noticing the apprehension of the

present petitioner, the driver of the Swift car fled away on foot leaving the vehicle abandoned. Upon search of the offending vehicle, the police team recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 101.420 kilograms from six gunny bags. The petitioner, who was allegedly escorting the offending vehicle, was arrested on the spot, whereas the driver of the offending vehicle succeeded in fleeing from the place of incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that contraband of commercial quantity was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that he was not escorting the offending vehicle. It was further submitted that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not followed while conducting the seizure proceedings and, therefore, the entire seizure proceedings suffer from illegality.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 24.06.2024; he has no criminal antecedents; investigation has already been completed; challan has been filed before the competent criminal court; and the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. On these grounds, it was prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that contraband (poppy husk/straw) of commercial quantity has been recovered in the present case and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely apply. He thus prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case, and after perusing the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that a bare perusal of the case file indicates that the petitioner was escorting the offending vehicle loaded with contraband of commercial quantity. It is revealed that the petitioner signalled the driver of the offending vehicle regarding the presence of police and nakabandi, upon which the driver abandoned the vehicle and fled away on foot. Therefore, the involvement of the petitioner in transporting/escorting the contraband of commercial quantity and in commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out at this stage.

8. This Court further finds that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding illegality in the seizure proceedings cannot be sustained, as no specific mandatory provision of the NDPS Act alleged to have been violated during the search and seizure proceedings has been pointed out.

9. Upon careful perus