BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7446/2026

: Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv. Mr. Gautam Bhadara, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 14/05/2026 Order

1. These second applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.55/2024 registered at Police Station Daulatpura (Jaipur-Ajmer Highway), District Jaipur for offence [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025] punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

26.09.2025 & 27.11.2024 respectively, while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of seizure officer. Now, seizure officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since 06.03.2024 and as such, they have already suffered incarceration of more than two years & two months.

4. Learned counsel contends that bare perusal of the testimony of the Seizure Officer would reveal that on the pretext of an accidental search, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not adhered to. It is an admitted case of prosecution that on the basis of suspicion, vehicle of the petitioners was stopped and searched on 06.03.2024 at 02:20 a.m. on National Highway however, instead of making seizure at the place of incident, vehicle in question was brought to Police Station Daulatpura, which is situated at the distance of only 30 meters from the place of incident, wherein entire memos, i.e., seizure, notices, arrests, search and recovery memos were prepared. It is submitted that taking the vehicle and the accused to the Police Station, and subsequently preparing memos there at their convenience, has undermined the sanctity of the search and seizure. It is contended [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025] that law requires that if certain thing is recovered at a particular place on the given time then the memos should be prepared at the same place in the presence of witnesses and accused. It is submitted that in the present case, there was no extraordinary circumstance available with the seizure officer to make search and seizure at any other place. It is argued that this issue was considered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11544/2023 titled as Kamlesh Kumar versus Union of India decided on 30.10.2023. The relevant part is reproduced as under:- “5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The circumstances created by the Police team in this matter brings the recovery into doubt. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the Panchnama Japti. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the shop and warehouse of the petitioner beforehand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared after a significant [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025] period of time had passed at another place(CBN, Neemach) making it seem as if seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, watering down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo.”

5. Learned Counsel further submits that no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure proceedings, despite the fact that the place of recovery is a National Highway. Counsel submits that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 103 of the BNSS (Corresponding to Section 100 of the Cr.P.C) is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. He cannot escape from his obligation merely by saying that a person refused to become an independent witness and if any person refuses to become a witness, his name should be recorded and proper action should be initiated against him for disobeying the order of the public servant.

6. Learned Counsel further submits that alleged recovery was made on 06.03.2024 and samples were drawn by the Magistrate on 18.03.2024 however, samples were deposited in the FSL on

08.04.2024 i.e. after a delay of about 21 days for which no plausible reason is available on record. Finally, it is urged that the continued incarceration of the petitioners serves no useful purpose, particularly looking to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners as mentioned in the order of [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025] the learned Trial Court. It is contended that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 1 prosecution witness has been examined out of 14 cited prosecution witnesses. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

7. Learned counsel submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru versus The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rambabu versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025 wherein after taking note of the fact that sample was sent for forensic examination after 24 days of registration of FIR whereas the statute requires that such samples be sent within 72 hours of seizure, facility of bail was granted to the accused. It is submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by all such conditions which may be imposed by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. He submits that commercial quantity of the contraband has been recovered in this case and therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioners.

9. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025]

10. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation.

11. The petitioners have been in custody for about two years & two months, and there appears no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Thus, the petitioners’ fundamental right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stands infringed. Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the cherished right to personal liberty, and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases.

12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments wherein considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused, facility of bail has been granted, as also considering the fact that petitioners are languishing in jail since 06.03.2024, so also considering the lacunae pointed out by learned counsel for the [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025] petitioners in the present case, absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these second bail applications.

13. The second bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Sandeep @ Topi S/o Azad Singh & (2) Kalwant Urf Jaswant S/o Shri Balbir Singh, arrested in connection with FIR FIR No.55/2024 registered at Police Station Daulatpura (Jaipur-Ajmer Highway), District Jaipur shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

14. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial.

15. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

16. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2026:RJ-JP:20566] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-15534/2025]

17. If any breach of these conditions is reported or comes to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court.

18. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. Manoj Solanki /- 3 & 4 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J