Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.51/2025 dated 22.03.2025 registered at Police Station Bekariya, District Udaipur for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case while alleging that the petitioner has been implicated solely upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Maan Singh, who stated that the offending vehicle car bearing no. RJ 27 CE 5141 was sold off by him to the present petitioner. He submits that the vehicle is registered in the name of Jyot Singh who stated that he transferred the offending vehicle in the name of Maan Singh by way of sale agreement dated 26.02.2024 and Maan Singh in turn, stated that by way of sale agreement dated 04.02.2025, he transferred the said vehicle in the name of the petitioner. He submits that the co-accused Murli and Gopi @ Govind Kumar flee from the spot and the offending vehicle was found abandoned as recovered by the police. He submits that the aforesaid co-accused Murli and Gopi @ Govind Kumar have been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in SBCRLMB nos. 350/2026, 15734/2025 which is reproduced as under:-

“1. These second bail application have been filed by the petitioners Murli S/o Shri Biharilal & Gopi @ Govind Kumar S/o Laxman Lal, aged about 21 years and 35 years respectively, challenging the bail rejection order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Sepcial Judge, NDPS Cases, Udaipur (Additional District & Session Judge No.1, Udaipur), District Udaipur in connection with the FIR bearing No.51/2025 registered at Police Station Bekriya, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel submitted that the first bail application was withdrawn by the petitioners vide order dated 14.11.2025 with liberty to file fresh application after recording the statement of the Investigating OfÏcer, thereafter, the petitioners have preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the police after conducting the investigation has filed the charge-sheet and no recovery is required to be made. Learned counsel further submitted that after filing of the charge-sheet, the statement of the Investigating OfÏcer was also recorded by the learned Trial Court as PW-1. By referring to the FIR & charge-sheet, learned counsel submitted that there was no recovery made by the Investigating OfÏcer from the petitioners herein. As far as the petitioner Murli is concerned, he was not arrested on the spot, and therefore, no recovery was affected from him.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that only on the basis of the abandoned vehicle, as recovered by the Police, the petitioner Murli has been implicated in the case. He further submitted that the petitioners herein have no criminal antecedents of any nature. As far as accused Gopi is concerned, learned counsel submitted that the allegations against him are in respect of Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that no recovery was effected from the accused Gopi. The statements as recorded are not sufÏcient to conclude that the petitioners committed the alleged offence. The accused-petitioner Murli is behind the bars since 17.05.2025 and the accused-petitioner Gopi is behind the bars since 02.08.2025. In view thereof, learned counsel prayed that the accused-petitioners be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application by submitÝng that recovery was made from the abandoned vehicle, in which the accused-petitioners Prakash and Murli were travelling together and carrying contraband substance. Learned counsel further submitted that as far as Gopi is concerned, the concerned Patwari has given the specific report and further the Investigating Of