State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

: Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 17/09/2025 Order

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Kedar S/o Shri Chhotu seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.185/2023 dated 27.10.2023 registered at P.S. Arai District - Ajmer, for the offence under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:39003] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-6502/2025]

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that without compliance of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, police effected search and seizure. He further submitted that in the absence of present petitioner, police allegedly recovered 34 kg 300 g of ganja from a bada. He also submitted that the bada from where the seizure was effected does not belong to present petitioner and there is no evidence on record to show involvement of present petitioner in procuring and storing ganja on the said land. He further referred to the process adopted by police and submitted that no independent witness was called before effecting search and seizure before recovering the contraband articles. He submitted that the recovered article does not fall within the definition of ganja as contained in Sections 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. He referred to the charge sheet and submitted that all witnesses are police witnesses and, till date, only six witnesses were recorded. He further submitted that search and seizure officer is examined as PW-2, and his cross- examination clearly indicates that the recovered contraband does not fall within the definition of ganja. He further submitted that the trial will still take time and the present petitioner has been in custody since 16.06.2024. He also referred to three cases registered against present petitioner and submitted that in FIR No. 94/2017, present petitioner was arraigned as an accused only under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and there was no recovery from conscious possession of present petitioner. He further referred to documents relating to FIR No. 209/2017 registered at PS [2025:RJ-JP:39003] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-6502/2025] Jahajpur and submitted that present petitioner Kedar was implicated only on the charge of Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act. He further submitted that in both these cases, the petitioner is enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

6. On 27.10.2023, P.S. Arai, after receiving information about storage of ganja in a bada attached to the house of present Petitioner Kedar, searched the premises after necessary compliance as mentioned in memos. During the search, it was found that present petitioner fled from the spot, noticing the presence of police, but they recovered ganja weighing 34 kg 300 g. After drawing memos, a report was registered. Present Petitioner has filed an anticipatory bail application, which was dismissed by this Court. Later, the petitioner accused was arrested on 16.06.2024 and a charge sheet has been filed against him. Till date, six witnesses have been examined by the trial court. The first bail application of petitioner was dismissed on 26.11.2024 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The Coordinate Bench noticed that contraband narcotics in commercial quantity was recovered from present petitioner, who was arrested only when some prize is declared on arrest of petitioner. The material on record indicates that petitioner is facing two [2025:RJ-JP:39003] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-6502/2025] criminal cases under Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act: firstly, FIR No. 94/2017 at P.S. Arai, and secondly, FIR No. 209/2017 at PS Jahajpur. The third case relates to IPC, a summons category of offence. As regard to definition of ganja, the trial has begun and police has forwarded the sample to FSL. The FSL report dated 20.05.2024 clearly shows that the packet contained brownish-green dry vegetative matter consisting of flowering and fruiting tops and other fragments, and it qualifies as ganja within the definition of Sections 2 (iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. After the FSL report, the contention of Learned Counsel cannot be accepted while deciding bail. Such grounds can be raised before the trial court at the time of final adjudication.

7. No doubt about the fact that recovery was effected from the bada and the owner of the bada was not present at the time of recovery. The petitioner was identified as the person who stored the alleged contraband, and after recovery, petitioner was suspected for storage and later arrested on 16.06.2024. The role and involvement of the petitioner, including ownership of bada, are matters of evidence and cannot be considered at the stage of bail.

8. The list of witnesses clearly indicates that 18 witnesses were named by prosecution and six witnesses have been examined so far, including PW-2, the search and seizure officer. The trial has to be concluded at the earliest, but there are many factors that affect the process of trial, which cannot be attributed to the prosecution alone. The order sheets of the trial court are not before us; therefore, we [2025:RJ-JP:39003] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-6502/2025] cannot express any opinion about the reasons for delay. The recovered quantity is commercial quantity, and without satisfaction of the provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the court cannot consider the bail application of the accused. In the case of Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmed Nodira, (2004 ) 3 SCC 549, and State of Kerala v. Rajesh and others, (2020) 12 SCC 122, further relied on and followed in The State Of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo and another, 2024 INSC 537, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that without satisfaction of the condition under Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail in recovery of contraband in commercial quantity cannot be granted.

9. Even in the case of Union Of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh 2023 SCC Online SC 346, Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail of the accused in wake of Section 37 of NDPS Act where the High Court has granted bail to the accused. Herein also there are no ground to record satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

10. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

11. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:39003] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-6502/2025]

12. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Kedar S/o Shri Chhotu is hereby dismissed.

13. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and record the statement of material witnesses as early as possible. PREETI VALECHA /23 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J