[2026:RJ-JP:2860]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 16901/2025 Devendra S/o Giriraj, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nimoda, Police Station Keshoraipatan, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Chhabra, District Baran).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 371/2026 Naresh Kumar S/o Heerala, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Raghunathpura, P.s. Talera, Bundi (Raj.) Accused Confined In Sub- Jail Chabra, Distt Baran (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun Mr. Carn Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/01/2026

1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.149/2024 registered at Police Station Sarthal, District Baran for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the seizure officer. Now, seizure officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 15.09.2024, and as such, they have suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 4 months. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with properly. Counsel contends that bare perusal of the testimony of the Seizure Officer would reveal that on the pretext of an accidental search, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not adhered to. Counsel further submits that despite the availability of the independent witnesses, no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure proceedings. Counsel further submits that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. He cannot escape from his obligation merely by saying that a person refused to become an independent witness and if any person refuses to become a witness, his name should be recorded and proper action should be initiated against him for disobeying the order of the public servant. It has been admitted by the Seizure Officer in his testimony that the entire seizure operation was videographed. However, it is an admitted position that no report relating to the electronic evidence has been prepared and no certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been brought on record. In the absence of such compliance, the videographic evidence cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. Counsel further submits that Section 105 of the BNSS mandates videography of the crime scene, the object of which is to ensure transparency and to obviate arbitrariness in seizure proceedings. Non-compliance with the aforesaid statutory mandate, coupled with the failure to adhere to the evidentiary requirements governing electronic evidence, casts a serious doubt on the legality and reliability of the seizure proceedings. Counsel further submits that alleged recovery was made on 15.09.2024 while inventory was prepared on 01.10.2024 and same day samples were drawn however, samples were deposited in the FSL o