Union of India v. Mohanlal Anr

Order 08/07/2025

1. This fifth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody since

28.03.2022 in connection with FIR No.152/2022 registered at Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu for the offence punishable under Section 8/18 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The previous bail applications preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner were dismissed vide orders dated 12.07.2023,

28.02.2024, 07.10.2024 & 09.05.2025. Now, this fifth bail application has been preferred on behalf of petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:25090] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-8546/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that as per the prosecution case, on 27.03.2022, complainant Madanlal SI received a secret input from Sh. Shivdas, Superintendent of Police that vehicle bearing No. RJ-18-UB-5350 will supply/carry opium and poppy husk. Acting upon the secret information, aforesaid vehicle was stopped by the police team and search was conducted of the alleged vehicle. During search, two sacks of contraband i.e., opium, weighing 6.30 kg and 5.010 kg respectively, were allegedly recovered from vehicle bearing No. RJ-18-UB-5350 which was being driven by accused Vijay and Ramlal was sitting on the conductor seat. He contends that a total false recovery of contraband has been planted upon him. He contends that the alleged recovery was affected from the petitioner at around 12:50AM in the night. This shows that the recovery proceedings were done in between sunset and sunrise and as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is required that whenever any search is made between sunset and sunrise, the authorized officer is required to record his reasons/grounds for such belief in writing but in the present case, such reasons were not recorded and no separate memo was prepared.

4. He also contends that the work of drawing sample was not done in accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. He argues that the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-compliance of this [2025:RJ-JP:25090] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-8546/2025] provision of law. In support of this contention, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgments passed in the cases of (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr : (2016) 3 SCC 3749 and (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 SCC online SC 862.

5. It is also argued that the search and seizure proceedings were conducted by SI Madan Lal who was not competent to conduct the search proceedings and thus, the entire proceedings are vitiated. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that inventory was prepared after one month of the alleged recovery. He submits that petitioner is behind the bars since 28.03.2022 and thus, more than, three years and three months have passed since his date of arrest. Learned counsel contends that Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, has granted benefit of bail to the accused persons who are behind the bars for two years or more in identical fact situation. The bail application of co-accused Ajay Kumar has been accepted by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2023 and bail application of co-accused Ramlal has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2024. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He thus, prays that the instant bail application may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that it is a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband thus, considering the rigour of [2025:RJ-JP:25090] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-8546/2025] Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. He further submits that one other case under the NDPS Act has also been registered against the petitioner.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.01.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.16671/2024 titled as Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit Versus State of Rajasthan wherein after considering the fact that accused has already suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 8 months, facility of bail was granted to the accused despite the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act were registered against him.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

9. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:25090] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-8546/2025]

10. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that co-accused Ajay Kumar & Ramlal have been enlarged on bail and prima facie, there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the recovery was effected during night time but no memo to this effect was prepared by the seizure officer as also looking to the period of custody as well as the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra), but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept the fifth bail application.

11. This fifth bail application is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Vijay S/o Shri Ramkishan, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 152/2022 registered at Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he 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.

12. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall [2025:RJ-JP:25090] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-8546/2025] mark his presence in second week of every month in the concerned police station.

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

14. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

15. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. LALIT MOHAN /40 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J