##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:3666]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.9574/2022

1. Harshita Garg Daughter Of Shri Nirmal Kumar Garg, Aged

About 27 Years, Resident Of Makaan No. D-93, Ladli Path,

Chomu House, C-Scheme, Police Station Vidhyakpuri,

Jaipur (Raj).

2. Rajat Morya Son Of Shri Mangilal, Aged About 31 Years,

Resident Of 817, UB Aura Tower Apartment, Shahkar

Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Infront Of Imli Phatak, Jaipur (Raj).

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Babloo @ Pawan Son Of Late Shri Balram @ Bal Bahadur,

Resident Of Gram Pulga, Post Office Barshaini, Police

Station Barshaini, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal

Pradesh.

2. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Special P.P.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.139/2023

Harshita Garg Daughter Of Shri Nirmal Kumar Garg, Aged About

27 Years, Resident Of Makaan No.D 93, Ladli Path, Chomu

House, C-Scheme, Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Babloo @ Pawan Son Of Late Shri Balram @ Bal Bahadur,

Resident Of Gram Pulga, Post Office Barshaini, Police

Station Barshaini, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, Himachal

Pradesh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:53:48 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:33:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:3666] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-9574/2022]

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 22/01 /2026

2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 22/01 /2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative

part is pronounced Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 28 /01/2026

1. The petitioners- Harshita Garg and Rajat Morya have

preferred the instant petition under Sections 482 and bail

cancellation application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., challenging

the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the Special Court (N.D.P.S.

Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in FIR No.350/2016 registered

at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under

Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act which was later on transferred to

CBI, New Delhi with Case No. RC3(S)/2019/CBI/SC/III/New Delhi,

by which the application for grant of pardon filed by Respondent

No.2 was allowed and bail was granted to Respondent No.2 Babloo

@ Pawan.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide

impugned order dated 17.03.2021, the accused respondent-

Babloo @ Pawan was granted pardon against provision of Section

306 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that the said order suffers from

patent illegality as the same was passed violating the essential

term of Section 306 of Cr.P.C. It is further claimed that as per

Section 306(4) of Cr.P.C., enlarging the accused-respondent

-Babloo @ Pawan on bail is per se illegal as Section 306(4)

provides explicitly that after the grant of pardon, the accused shall

be detained till the conclusion of the trial. It is also contended that

the trial Court has no right to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

terms of Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as the provision of Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. is not applicable, and only under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 04:53:48 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:33:00 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:3666] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-9574/2022]

could the respondent have applied for bail. In support of his

argument, learned counsel relies on the judgment of Noor Taki

Alias Mammu vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1987 Raj 52

passed by this Court and Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes vs.

The State of Maharashtra & Others, 1968 AIR 594, passed by

the Hon'ble Apex Court.

3. Contrarily, it is argued by learned counsel for the C.B.I. that

the case was transferred to the C.B.I. and thereafter, as per the

provision of Section 64 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the application was

filed, and the same was allowed by the trial Court. It is contended

that there is no violation of any provision enshrined unde