[2026:RJ-JP:4353]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10384/2025 Sunil S/o Bhakar Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Khabarakhurd, Tehsil Osiya District Jodhpur (Raj.) (Pititioner Is In Central Jail Kota)

----Petitioner Versus C.b.n., Through Special Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv. with Ms. Drishti Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

21/01/2026

1. This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since 05.02.2024 in connection with complaint/FIR No.04/2022 registered at Police Station Central Bureau Narcotic, District Kota for offence under Section 8/15(C), 8/25, 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the contraband i.e. poppy husk was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been implicated in this case only on the basis that he was the owner of the vehicle in question from which the contraband was recovered. Counsel submits that provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with properly in this case. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. 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 05.02.2024 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than two years. Thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for CBN opposes the bail application and submits that huge commercial quantity of the contraband i.e. 4069.600 kg of poppy husk has been recovered in the case and therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioner. He further submits that Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer have already been examined and trial court has tried to conclude the trial at earliest.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that huge commercial quantity of contraband i.e. 4069.600 kg of poppy husk was recovered in this case from the vehicle of the petitioner, as also looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the second bail application stands dismissed.

8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /18