[2026:RJ-JD:1464]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8296/2025 Pankaj @ Prahlad S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ramsar Ka Kuan, Rawatsar Police Station Barmer Sadar, Dist.

Barmer. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Jalore)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.C Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

12/01/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.30/2025 registered at Police Station Nosara, District Jalore, for offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act and Section 354 & 318(4) of the BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 435 kilograms was recovered by the Investigating Agency from an abandoned Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. MH-04-JM- 5058. Learned counsel submitted that, during the course of investigation, the prosecution alleged that the said contraband was being transported by the co-accused Deva Ram in the offending vehicle and that the present petitioner was allegedly escorting the said vehicle in another Scorpio vehicle.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion, without there being any cogent or substantive evidence available on record establishing his involvement in commission of the alleged offence. It was contended that the vehicle allegedly used by the petitioner for escorting the co- accused Deva Ram has not been recovered by the Investigating Agency till date. Learned counsel further submitted that no evidence has been collected by the police to indicate that the petitioner was in live contact with the co-accused at the time when the contraband was being allegedly transported in the offending vehicle bearing registration No. MH-04-JM-5058.

Learned counsel also submitted that, as per the prosecution, the call detail records and WhatsApp chats of the petitioner have been collected by the Investigating Agency and are sought to be relied upon to establish his involvement in commission of the alleged offence. However, merely because the petitioner is a resident of the same area, the call location details, in the absence of any incriminating transcript or other corroborative material, cannot be treated as cogent evidence so as to establish direct nexus with the co-accused or to substantiate the allegation of the petitioner escorting the offending vehicle.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan has already been filed; no case of similar nature is pending against him; and the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable period of time. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that sufficient corroborative evidence, in the form of call detail records and call location data, has been collected by the Investigating Agency, which prima facie establishes the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. It was further submitted that, considering the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve the indulgence of bail and the present application deserves to be rejected.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband in the present case has not been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitio