[2025:RJ-JP:51128]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 16200/2025 Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Pokharmal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Sihot, Badi Tehsil, Dhod, Police Station Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Special PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar with Ms. Seema Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

17/12/2025

1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.233/2025 registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur City (North) for offence punishable under under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet in this case before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 8/25 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025. Now, police has filed charge-sheet in this case before the concerned Court thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband. Compliance of provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has also not been done in the instant case.

4. He contends that as per the prosecution case, MDMA weighing 16 grams 09 milligrams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner while as per the FSL report dated 15.12.2025, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet (Mark ‘S’), sent to the FSL for analysis. He argues that the commercial quantity of MDMA is 10 Grams whereas with respect to Mephedrone, it is 50 Grams. As per the FSL report, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet and thus, the recovery of substance which is weighing 16 grams 09 milligrams, allegedly effected from the petitioner is below commercial quantity. He submits that if contraband recovered from the possession of the co-accused is also added, even then it will not fall under the category of commercial quantity. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner.

6. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

7. As per the prosecution case, recovery was allegedly effected on 09.07.2025. The recovered contraband was observed and perceived as MDMA on the basis of past experience of the Seizure Officer and thereafter, sample (mark ‘S’) was sent to the FSL vide letter dated 07.08.2025 but the FSL report was prepared and issued on 15.12.2025 that is almost after nearly 130 days of its receipt opining that Mephedrone was found in the sample packet. It is well-established law that a seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but only on the basis of observation and opinion, based on past experience of the seizure officer, liberty of a person is put to stake, which in my considered opinion, is not justified in any manner. Apart from it, this determination/classification/ of the contraband on the basis of so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only effect the rights of an accused but it also give impact on the trial and investigation.

8. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Magistrate to commit to custody an accused person and ther