CRLMB/7719/2026 of SURJEET SINGH S/O SHRI POORAN SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 17 August 2026

Order

17/08/2026

1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.96/2024 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Beawar for offences under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. After investigation, the Police has submitted a charge- sheet in this matter.

2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 while granting liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, the said witness has been examined during the course of trial, thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Counsel submits

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-7719/2026] that the Seizure Officer has been examined as PW-3 during the course of trial and there are major contradiction in his testimony. Counsel further submits that in cross-examination of the Seizure Officer, he has admitted the fact that the place of recovery is a National Highway and a densely populated area and hotels are also situated nearby. He also admitted that the Court premises and Tehsil Office are situated at a distance of one kilometer from the place of recovery. Counsel submits that admittedly, while effecting the seizure, no independent witness was associated by the Bureau despite availability. Counsel submits that simply saying that person refused to become a witness is not enough, especially considering the fact that ample provisions are available in the BNS, which empowers the Officer to take action against the person who refuses to become a witness in the proceedings. Counsel submits that it is apparent from the record that there is no reference of the name of the persons who refused to become a witness.

4. Counsel further submits that recovery of the contraband article i.e., 146.800 Kg of Poppy husk, was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and prima facie offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act is not made out against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the mandatory provision contained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has not been duly complied with in the present case. Counsel submits that recovery of the contraband was effected on 27.03.2024 and the inventory of the seized article was prepared on 06.05.2024, i.e., after a delay of 40 days from the date of alleged recovery of the contraband and the samples were deposited in the FSL on

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-7719/2026] 02.07.2024, i.e., after a further delay of about two months without any plausible explanation for such delay, despite the statutory requirement for immediate sampling and dispatch.

5. It is further submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru v. 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. Counsel contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2024 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than two years. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that contraband article weighing 146.800 Kg of poppy husk has been recovered in this case which falls under the category of commercial quantity. Counsel submits that the matter pertains to commercial quantity of contraband article and therefore, looking to the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute embargo on grant of bail. While considering bail, the Court is not required to record a positive finding of innocence; rather, it must assess, prima facie, whether the accused may not be guilty, upon a reasonable and broad evaluation of the material

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-7719/2026] on record. Meticulous examination of evidence is not warranted at this stage.

9. 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 statement of the Seizure Officer (PW-3), as also considering the fact that there are no previous case registered against the petitioner and the fact that inventory was prepared after a delay of 40 days from the alleged recovery of contraband and samples were deposited in the FSL after a further delay of about two months, further trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period of the petitioner which is about two years and four months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application.

10. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Pooran Singh, shall be released on bail provided he 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 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.

11. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences during currency of bail and shall mark his presence in the local police station where he is presently residing in the second week of every month till conclusion of trial. Breach of any of these two conditions

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-7719/2026] shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him.

12. The concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording his presence. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence, as stated above, the concerned SHO is directed to intimate the matter to the concerned court forthwith.

13. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 6/Manoj Solanki