[2026:RJ-JP:1026]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12399/2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Shubhkaran, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vil- lage Katrathal Gumana Ka Bas, Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya with Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

12/01/2026

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.233/2025 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur City (North) for offence punishable under under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Court for offences punishable under Sections 8/22 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery of contraband. It is contended that compliance of provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has also not been done in the instant case.

3. He contends that as per the prosecution case, MDMA weighing 16 grams 09 milligrams was recovered from the possession of the petitioner while as per the FSL report dated 15.12.2025, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet (Mark ‘S’), sent to the FSL for analysis. He argues that the commercial quantity of MDMA is 10 Grams whereas with respect to Mephedrone, it is 50 Grams. As per the FSL report, Mephedrone was found in the sample packet and thus, the recovery of substance which is weighing 16 grams 09 milligrams, allegedly effected from the petitioner is below commercial quantity. He submits that if contraband recovered from the possession of the co-accused is also added, even then it will not fall under the category of commercial quantity. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases have been registered against him. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

6. As per the prosecution case, recovery was allegedly effected on 09.07.2025. The recovered contraband was observed and perceived as MDMA on the basis of past experience of the Seizure Officer and thereafter, sample (mark ‘S’) was sent to the FSL vide letter dated 07.08.2025 but the FSL report was prepared and issued on 15.12.2025 that is almost after nearly 130 days of its receipt opining that Mephedrone was found in the sample packet. It is well-established law that a seizure officer cannot be said to be an expert within the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act but only on the basis of observation and opinion, based on past experience of the seizure officer, liberty of a person is put to stake, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is not justified in any manner. Apart from that, this determination or classification of the contraband based on the so-called past experience of the seizure officer not only affects the rights of an accused but also has an impact on the trial and investigation.

7. Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. confers powers on the Magistrate to commit to custody an accused person and there is limitation of 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be. This provision is related to information to the police and their powers to investigate. Any further remand to judicial custody beyond 90 days and 60 days without the charge-sh