[2026:RJ-JD:380]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11290/2025 Nirmaljeet Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Jat Sikh, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Ward No.8 Makha Pati Kot Sameer, Ps Bathinda Sadar, District Bathinda Punjab (Lodged In Central Jail, Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10597/2025 Gagandeep Singh S/o Balvinder Singh Jat Sikh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Riyand Khurd,police Station Boha,district Manasa,at Present Mulapur Garib Das,police Station Malapur,district Mohali,pb. (Lodged In District Jail,chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi Mr. Manohar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

07/01/2026 These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.360/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar, Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the present petitioners is that on 29.09.2024, they were transporting contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 100.700 kg in a Skoda car bearing registration No. HR-06-AL-2222 near Kota– Nimbahera Road. It was alleged that when the police signaled the petitioners to stop the vehicle, they accelerated the speed of the car and thereafter abandoned the vehicle and fled from the spot.

Learned counsel further submitted that as per the prosecution case, upon search of the said Skoda car, a FASTag, one sweet box, and a dongle issued by Airtel Company were recovered. During the course of investigation, the police retrieved BTS data from the crime scene and analyzed call detail records. On such analysis, the mobile numbers 8898905000 and 7696408550 were allegedly found to be used by petitioner Gagandeep Singh and petitioner Nirmaljeet Singh, respectively.

Learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, without there being any direct evidence to indicate their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. It was further submitted that retrieval of mobile phone numbers on the basis of BTS data is not a foolproof method to establish the presence of the petitioners at the place of occurrence.

In support of this contention, learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-01) recorded before the competent criminal court, wherein he admitted that the BTS system only reflects suspicious phone numbers and that the identification of the petitioners’ mobile numbers was based merely on his personal experience.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for more than one year and that the trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude; therefore, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications.

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners; that the petitioners have been implicated mainly on the basis of suspicious mobile numbers retrieved through the BTS system; and that the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. Learned Public Prosecutor has also not pointed out any apprehension of the petitioners indulging in similar offences or absconding, in case they are enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the ca