[2026:RJ-JD:19818]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5095/2026 Shakir Shah S/o Shakil Shah, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gadola Ps Rathanjana Tehsil And Dist Pratapgarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner Versus C.B.N.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Raj Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. MR Pareek, SPP a/w Mr. Thanaram Bishnoi, Spl. PP with Mr. Gopal Singh Shekhawat.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

27/04/2026 This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

The 1st application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10791/2025 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 12.11.2025 passed by this court, however, with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the statement of Seizure Officer. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of Seizure Officer-Samrath Ganawa has been recorded as PW-4. Hence, this second application for bail has been preferred.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the contraband was recovered from the petitioner at Choti Sadri, Nimbaheda Road, Near Narsinghgarh Toll, whereas the entire proceedings were carried at the office of the Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBN), which is situated 110 kms away from the place of recovery. The said fact has also been admitted by the Seizure Officer- Samrath Ganawa as PW-4 in his cross-statement. The relevant portion of the statement of the Seizure Officer (PW-4) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

";g lgh gS fd QnZ tCrh cukrs le; eSaus U;kf;d eftLVªsV lkgc dks mifLFkr ugha j[kk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd QnZ tCrh o ,uMhih,l dh dk;Zokgh eSaus ekSds ls 110 fdyksehVj njw vius dk;kZy; esa vkdj dh FkhA ;g lgh gS fd ge ekSds ls dk;kZy; rd vk, bl ckcr dksbZ ykbo yksds'ku o :VpkVZ i=koyh ij is'k ugha gSA"

It is further submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband is stated to have been effected on 30.09.2024, whereas the samples were forwarded to the FSL for examination only on 17.10.2024, resulting in an unaccounted delay of approximately 17 days. He has also submitted that Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No.1/1988 dated 15.03.1988, mandates that samples drawn ought to have been sent for FSL examination within 72 hours from recovery. In terms of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, prior authorization from the competent authority is mandatory before conducting search and seizure, which requirement has not been complied with in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Rambabu v. State of Rajasthan (SLP (Crl.) No. 5648/2025 and SLP (Crl.) No. 5732/2025), decided on 13.08.2025, wherein relief was granted considering the delay and lack of substantive evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal No.7049/2025) decided on 09.02.2026 It is submitted that there are several flaws and latches in the case of prosecution and the entire procedure is highly doubtful. It is further submitted that the co-accused Sameer Sheikh has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9097/2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents; the challan/complaint has already been filed in the case and the petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2024; i.e. 1 year, 6 months and 28 days as on today. It is also submitted that the trial of the case is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude; therefore, further incarceration of