[2025:RJ-JD:50552]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10939/2025 Krishna Pal Singh S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sakarkhedi, Police Station Hathunia, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Khillery For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

21/11/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The essential narrative of the prosecution is that on

08.08.2024 at approximately 09:16 PM, the Station House Officer of Police Station Hathunia, Shri Indrajeet Parmar, intercepted an unnumbered Swift vehicle during a routine checkpoint operation. The vehicle was driven by the petitioner/accused Krishnapal Singh, while co-accused Lalita occupied the rear seat. Their manifestly suspicious conduct prompted the police to escort them to the nearby police station for a formal and thorough search. Upon such inspection, the officers unearthed seven gunny bags clandestinely concealed in the boot, containing 118 kg 48 g of doda chura. Subsequent to completing all procedural formalities, both individuals were apprehended under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. The investigation revealed sufficient prima facie material implicating them, resulting in the filing of a charge-sheet. The petitioner’s earlier bail plea, SBCRLMB No.2791/2025, was dismissed as not pressed on 16.06.2025, while granting liberty to renew the prayer after the Seizing Officer’s testimony now duly recorded leading to the present application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations are devoid of substance and that the petitioner’s continued incarceration is unwarranted. It is urged that his implication rests solely on conjectures and presumptive reasoning. The defence further argues that the recovery and the entire investigative mechanism stand vitiated owing to gross non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, specifically Sections 42, 50, 52A and 55 of the NDPS Act, the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 particularly Rules 3, 5, 8, 9 and 13 and Standing Order 1/89 of the Central Government. Additional emphasis is placed on the failure to comply with Sections 105 and 85 of the BNSS, which mandate videography of the crime scene, a safeguard introduced to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrariness in seizure operations. Given the strict and often draconian architecture of the NDPS Act, counsel argues that such procedural lapses, which strike at the foundational legitimacy of the alleged recovery, render the prosecution’s case fundamentally infirm, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail.

4. Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application, submitting that the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the recovery render the case unsuitable for grant of bail. According to the prosecution, the alleged lapses do not undermine the core of the prosecution case, and the petitioner’s release would not be in the interest of justice.

5. I have meticulously considered the respective submissions and perused the entirety of the material available on record. The petitioner’s initial bail plea was not pursued, though liberty was duly granted to renew the prayer after the Seizing Officer’s deposition requirement that now stands fulfilled.

6. Having bestowed my thoug