CRLMB/12796/2026 of HARI SINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 19 August 2026

Order

19/08/2026

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Hari Singh S/o Narayan Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. VII(IO)07/NCB/JPZU/2025 dated 19.05.2025 registered at P.S. Regional Unit District-Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 8/20, 8/25 and 8/29 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

(2 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on merits on 30.01.2026 and present petitioner is in custody since his arrest. He also submitted that out of 22 witnesses, only 09 have been examined by the prosecution and statement of all nine witnesses has been placed on record. He further submitted that the allegation upon present petitioner is for assistance and conspiracy but there is no evidence to connect petitioner with recovery of contraband. He also referred the charge against the petitioner and submitted that charge against petitioner is under Section 29 of NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel has further referred cross-examination of PW4, search and seizure officer and submitted that his admission clearly indicates that nothing revealed during search and seizure about present petitioner and during interrogation with other accused from whom recovery has been effected, no information was recorded. He also referred statement of other witnesses and submitted that nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner has ever been connected to the alleged transaction on the basis of recovery of parchi (a slip). He also submitted that petitioner is not having any connect with other accused or any of the transaction of other accused. At last, he submitted that petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 20.05.2025.

5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor and he submitted that this Hon'ble Court

(3 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] has considered the evidence against the petitioner in earlier order dated 30.01.2026. He also submitted that recovery is of commercial quantity and present petitioner is one of the conspirator accused involved in illegal transportation and transaction of contraband articles. He also referred the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed completion of trial within a period of six months.

6. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

7. First bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 18.09.2025 and second application was dismissed on 30.01.2026. While dismissing second bail application, we have observed as under:

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 19- 05-2025, the Narcotics Central Bureau, (NCB) has intercepted a vehicle number HR56 A 9381 near Sonwa Toll Plaza, Tonk, and recovered 296.204 kg of illicit ganja from possession of accused Bablu Singh and Neshar. After drawing memo and other proceedings, a report is registered and during interrogation, involvement of petitioner was found. The statement of accused Bablu Singh and Neshar were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act, who disclosed that the ganja is transported as per instruction of Mukesh and Manjit for delivery at Fatehpur Sikar to Hari Singh, (present petitioner). A notice has been served to Hari Singh and on 20-5-2025, he was arrested, after inquiry, a charge sheet is filed.The

(4 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] material on record collected by the NCB indicate that multiple calls were made by Hari Singh to Mukesh, who was named as illicit ganja supplier. The material also indicate communication between Nishad and Mukesh and further Mukesh with Manjit Singh and Bablu Singh. The number of calls on the basis of CDR analysis are large in number. The NCB has further collected details of multiple payments made by Hari Singh to Mukesh by using various bank accounts and UPI IDs and the details are provided with reports submitted by NCB.

7. The recovered quantity in the instant case is 296.204 kg and same is commercial quantity. In case of commercial quantity, section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering application for bail, but certainly a liberal approach in a matter relating to NDPS is uncalled for.

8. In case of Jothi @ Nagajothi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering and relying upon judgment in case of Surinder Kumar (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra), has held that the testimony of official witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their official status. Considering aforesaid judgment, the ratio as referred in case of Zakir Hussain (supra) is not applicable.

9. Here in this case, the statement of Bablu Singh and Neshar were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act. Further, the delivery

(5 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] point of illicit Ganja was also recorded in memo by search and seizure officer on the basis of statement of Bablu Singh and Neshar, present petitioner was called for interrogation by serving a notice dated 19.05.2025. Afterwards, the statement of present petitioner was also recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act.

10. In case of Tofan Singh (supra), a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in respect of section 67 of NDPS Act held that a statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as an confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The material on record clearly indicates that the statement of present petitioner cannot be used against the petitioner as per ratio laid down in case of Tofan Singh (supra), but there are other evidence which can be considered by the court at the time of trial. Moreover, at the stage of bail, the court has to consider prima facie the evidence forwarded by the prosecuting agency and we have considered the entire evidence on record, and we are refraining ourselves from examining the material on merits.

8. The petitioner has approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No. 4905/2026 and on 17.04.2026 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

1. The petitioner has been denied regular bail by the High Court in connection with First Information Report bearing No. VIII(I0)07/NCB/JPZU/2025 registered with Regional Unit Police Station, Jaipur dated

(6 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] 19.5.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20, 8/25 and 8/29, respectively of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS, Act”).

2. The contraband involved in the present case is 296 Kgs of Ganja.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has manifold contentions to raise, including the fact that the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

4. We take notice of the fact that the trial is in progress. Three witnesses have been examined so far.

5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion at this stage. Let the trial proceed further expeditiously. The Trial Court shall see to it that the trial is completed within a period of six months from today.

6. The disposal of the trial shall be reported to this Court.

7. List the matter after six months for reporting compliance of the order.

9. Having considered the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no ground to consider bail application of present petitioner, particularly when Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed period of six months for conclusion of trial, which is up to 17.10.2026.

10. We have considered statement of PW4 as referred by learned counsel for petitioner and also order dated 30.01.2026 as referred by learned Special Public Prosecutor. Considering

(7 of 7) [CRLMB-12796/2026] the role and gravity of charge and the material where the recovery of ganja is approximately 296 kg, therefore, this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail as no element under Section 37 of NDPS Act is satisfied.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, the third application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Harisingh S/o Narayan Singh is hereby dismissed.

14. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through email. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 17/PREETI VALECHA