[2025:RJ-JP:50749]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 15973/2025 Suresh Kumar Yogi S/o Shri Bhairulal Yogi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Charanvas, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur, Present Address Kumharo Ki Dhani, Vaidh Ji Ka Chourah, Niwaru Road, Ps Kardhani, Jaipur (West) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Meena, Adv. with Mr. Vicky Choudhary, Adv.

Mr. Vijendra Choudhary, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/12/2025

1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1264/2023 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22 & 8/25 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that neither information received from the informant was reduced in writing nor it was sent to the superior Officer. Counsel submits that Seizure Officer has candidly admitted the fact that he did not comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act and he further admitted that SOP issued in this regard was not followed by him during the course of search, seizure and arrest. Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Kumar VS State of Goa, reported in AIR 1995 (SC) 1157. It is submitted that by the ratio in Mohinder Kumar (supra), it has been emphatically held that from the very moment, a police officer gets to know of the possession or recovery of contraband, he is obliged in law to scrupulously follow the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It has also been admitted by the Seizure Officer that no independent witness was associated by him at the time of search and seizure. Counsel further submits that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 103 of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 100 of Cr.PC) is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 2 witnesses have been examined out of 15 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than two years. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Ac