[2026:RJ-JD:7932]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 920/2026 Rakesh S/o Prem Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gadariyawas, Police Station Choti Sadri, District Partapgarh,rajasthan Lodged In District Jail,partapgarh ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

16/02/2026 The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S. No.	Particulars of the case
1.	FIR Number	70/2025
2.	Police Station	Choti Sadri
3.	District	Pratapgarh
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Section 8/15 of NDPS Act
5.	Offences added, if any	Section 25 & 29 NDPS Act

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. CRLMB No.11015/2025, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file afresh application after filing of the challan.

Now the challan has been filed, hence this second bail application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the alleged contraband was recovered from an abandoned vehicle and no person was apprehended at the spot. It is submitted that one Constable-Dharmendra claims to have identified the petitioner at the place of occurrence, which identification, in absence of any independent corroboration, is doubtful and unreliable. It is further contended that the petitioner is neither the driver of the vehicle nor is registered owner, thus, no direct or conscious possession can be attributed to him.

It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner, namely Premchand, had submitted an application before the concerned authority along with Google location details and CCTV footage, specifically asserting that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the relevant time and was instead at his agricultural field and playing video games.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been named by co-accused Devkaran, however, there is no call details or mobile tower location qua the petitioner available on record. It is further submitted that the statement of co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as substantial evidence. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely Devi Lal and Devkaran, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 30.01.2026 & 26.11.2025 passed in S.B. CRLMB No. 14923/2025 & 14262/2025. The another co-accused, Dinesh, has also been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Moreover, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 27.07.2025. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-

petitioner.

Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the contraband was recovered from the vehicle in question and, as per the investigation, the petitioner was escorting the said vehicle. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the material available on record.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul passed in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2009, explained the principles applicable in grant of Bail in offences under the NDPS Act, the relevant paras are reproduced here:

“12. Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document