HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 8795/2021

Girraj Prasad Goyal S/o Shri Satyanarayan Goyal, Aged About 42

Years, R/o Village Ward No. 11, Near Rajasthan School Paota P.s.

Pragpura District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Accused In Sub-Jail,

Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 5^th Bail Application No. 8796/2021

Holadar Singh S/o Bhairu Ram, Resident Of Bhaislana, Tehsil

Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In

Sub-Jail, Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Rajneesh Gupta

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Ola, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

16/07/2021

1.

The present bail applications have been filed by the

petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been

arrested in connection with FIR No.162/2020 registered at Police

Station Pragpura, District Jaipur (Rural) for the offences under

Sections 8/21, 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

2.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have

been falsely implicated in this matter.

(2 of 4)

[CRLMB-8795/2021]

3.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and

submitted that Narcotic Substance which is of commercial quantity

has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners.

Counsel further submits that keeping in view the bar under

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioners are not entitled to be

released on bail.

4.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala

Vs. Rajesh Etc. reported in (2020) 12 SCC 122 has held as

under:-

“20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the

exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to

the limitations contained Under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, but is also subject to the

limitation placed by Section 37 which commences

with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the

said Section is in the negative form prescribing the

enlargement of bail to any person Accused of

commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin

conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the

prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose

the application; and the second, is that the Court

must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If

either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the

ban for granting bail operates.

21. The expression "reasonable grounds" means

something more than prima facie grounds. It

contemplates substantial probable causes for

believing that the Accused is not guilty of the alleged

offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the

provision requires existence of such facts and

circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to

justify satisfaction that the Accused is not guilty of

the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High

Court seems to have completely overlooked the

underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the

limitations provided under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, or any other law for the time being in

force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach

in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed

uncalled for.

22. We may further like to observe that the learned

Single Judge has failed to record a finding mandated

Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act which is a sine qua

non for granting bail to the Accused under the NDPS

Act.

(3 of 4)

[CRLMB-8795/2021]

23. The submission made by learned Counsel for the

Respondents that in Crime No. 14/2018, the bail has

been granted to the other Accused persons(A-1 to A-

4), and no steps have been taken by the prosecution

to challenge the grant of post-arrest bail to the other

Accused persons, is of no consequence for the reason

that the c