CRLMB/4694/2026 of NANDKISHORE MEENA S/O MANGILAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 24 August 2026

Order

24/08/2026

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking bail in an FIR No. 8/2026 Under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Asnawar District Jhalawar. In course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 22.01.2026 and is under incarceration since then.

2. The earlier bail application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Jhalawar which has been dismissed by an order dated 24.02.2026 and thus, he is before this Court.

3. At the outset, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the bail order dated 22.04.2026. That order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

(2of 4) [CRLMB-4694/2026] Application No. 5341/2026. By the said order, the other co- accused Shyamlal Hudda was enlarged on bail.

4. It is submitted that the contraband allegedly recovered is doda chura weighing 469.550 kg. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he loaded the said contraband in the vehicle, a pickup. The petitioner is a labourer by occupation. He loaded the bags in the pickup to earn his livelihood. He had no knowledge of the contraband. To his understanding, the bags contained either wheat or husk. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role attributed to the petitioner is identical to the role attributed to the said accused Shyamlal Hudda. He, therefore, seeks bail on the ground of parity.

5. On a query put by the Court, learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute this position. He states that the role attributed to the petitioner is the same as the role attributed to Shyamlal Hudda.

6. However, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that learned Sessions Court has rightly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case file.

8. Besides parity, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the other grounds also, which are in tune with the grounds taken in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would inter alia contend that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the FIR and that no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession. He would further submit that no recovery is pending from the

(3of 4) [CRLMB-4694/2026] petitioner and he has remained in judicial custody since 22.01.2026. Learned counsel would further contend that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to consideration for grant of bail in terms of Section 483 of the BNSS. It is urged that continued incarceration of the petitioner serves no useful purpose, particularly when the recovery, as alleged is not pending from him. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to consume considerable time and the petitioner has already remained in custody since long and continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted for any purpose and that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Counsel submits that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and case of the petitioner is akin to that of the other co-accused. Counsel submits that petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and shall abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court.

9. I have considered the rival submissions. The case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of Shyamlal Hudda, who has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. No material has been placed before this Court to distinguish the role of the petitioner from that of the said accused. In these circumstances, on the ground of parity alone, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the other grounds at this stage, even though, I may observe that some of those seem to have substance.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused petitioner Nandkishore Meena son of Mangilal Ram

(4of 4) [CRLMB-4694/2026] shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No. 8/2026 registered at Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalawar, for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. The release shall be subject to the petitioner furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount i.e. Rs. 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court or the learned Duty Magistrate, as the case may be. The bond shall be for his appearance before the trial court whenever called upon to do so, till the conclusion of the trial.

11. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the disposal of the present bail application. The learned trial court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by any of the said observations. (ARUN MONGA),J 49/ashu