State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp vs Connected With

: Mr. Ashindra Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP [2025:RJ-JP:34889] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4214/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 01/09/2025

1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused- petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.135/2024, registered at Police Station Rawanjana Dungar, District Swai Madhopur, for the offence(s) under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the recovery of alleged contraband article i.e.,

567.350Kg of Ganja was made from the vehicle bearing No. WB- 15D-8669. It is also contended that there is no connectivity to the fact that co-accused Rajkumar and the present petitioners were escorting the vehicle bearing No. WB-15D-8669, from which the alleged contraband articles were recovered. It is further contended that co-accused has not named the present petitioners in the alleged crime rather the name of the petitioner was revealed later on upon the disclosure statement of co-accused Rajkumar, when the vehicle was intercepted by the Seizure Officer. It is also contended that the disclosure statement of co-accused RajKumar cannot be relied upon and be read against the petitioners and apart from the said disclosure statement there is no specific fact indicating the involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged crime. It is further contended that the arrest of the petitioner Shubhash is illegal and reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has enlarged [2025:RJ-JP:34889] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4214/2025] the petitioner on bail solely on the ground of illegal arrest. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that petitioners were involved in transporting the said contraband in vehicle No. WB-15D-8669, therefore, the rider imposed under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is not applicable in the present case. It is further argued that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 26.07.2024 and out of 51 cited witnesses, only one witness has been recorded. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that delay in trial amounts to violation of principle of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and granted relief solely on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial. Similarly, in the instant case, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is also contended that there is no other incriminating substance present in the vehicle, the police has examined the Seizure Officer PW.1 Yaduveer Singh, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application and contended that the Seizure officer acting upon a secret information, intercepted the vehicle bearing No. WB-15D-8669. The information was conveyed by the C.O., (Aditya Kumar Singh) STF Headquarter, Lucknow, through mobile communication, stating that a vehicle carrying contraband articles was coming from Kota and was heading towards Sawai Madhopur. It was further informed that to keep an eye upon the said vehicle another car was following it. The Seizure Officer intercepted the vehicle bearing No. WB-15D-8669 and the co-accused Rajkumar revealed the fact that some plants are there in the vehicle. The co-accused also informed that 4 persons are also coming in [2025:RJ-JP:34889] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4214/2025] another vehicle- Tata 1512 bearing No. WB 15D 8669 and those 4 persons were namely Rahul, Subhash Thapa, Lallan along with Nilesh. Upon interrogation they explained that in the vehicle bearing No. WB-15D-8669 plants are being transported. The vehicle was searched by the Seizure officer in the presence of the other Police Officials and 12 bags containing the contraband article i.e., ganja was found. Therefore, the above circumstances clearly shows that petitioners were actively involved in transporting the illegal contraband in the vehicle No. WB-15D-8669 and at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged offence. The quantity recovered from the vehicle is 564 Kg which is a commercial quantity and as per the rider imposed under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. It is also contended that as far as arrest of petitioner Shubhash is concerned no plea was taken at the time when he was produced before the concerned Court. The plea of arrest has been taken at the belated stage, when the trial has already been commenced, and merely on the basis of any irregularities in the arrest, the entire seizure procedure cannot be vitiated and therefore, the petitioners are not inclined for grant of bail.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record. Considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, these instant bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners are hereby dismissed. Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-2-4 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J