CRLMB/7438/2026 of SURENDRA SINGH S/O RAGHUVEER SINGH Vs CENTRAL BUREAU NARCOTICS (CBN) on 13 August 2026

Order

13/08/2026

1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 09/2025 registered at Police Station CBN Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar for the offence punishable under Section 8/20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed a charge-sheet in this matter.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

(2 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial as PW-1 & PW-2 and there are major contradictions in their testimony. Counsel submits that recovery of contraband weighing 31.295 Kg of Ganja was not effected from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that there is total non-compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Counsel submits that admittedly, seizure was not made at the place where the petitioner was intercepted by the officers and later on, he was brought to the Bureau Office at Bhawanimandi where entire proceedings were conducted. Counsel submits that the petitioner was intercepted at Kota and the seizure proceedings was conducted at Bhawanimandi, which is at the distance of about 70- 80 km from the place where the petitioner was intercepted by the Officer. Counsel submits that in Kota itself, Bureau office was situated where the entire proceedings can be conducted, but the Officers of CBN brought the petitioner at Bureau Office of Bhawanimandi and conducted the entire proceedings. Counsel submits that this controversy was considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.5457/2024 titled as Major Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. The relevant part is reproduced as under: “The credibility of the seizure memo loses significance if the thing is recovered at a distant place and it is taken by the police from the crime scene to the police station and then memos got prepared in the police station. If it is allowed, then why not in every case the things may be taken from the crime scene and

(3 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026] whereafter, the entire proceeding be undertaken in the premises of the police station? And then why not in every case the accused can be detained from any place and whereafter his/her/their memo of arrest be prepared in the police station? This Court is of the view

that if anything or any incriminating material is collected or recovered from a particular place and at a particular time, then the seizure memo/recovery memo should have been prepared at the same place and that too in the presence of the witnesses of the same locality. A slight departure or deviation can be permitted in case when no other person is available to verify the fact of recovery at the crime scene; then the members of the police party can be made witness of the fact of recovery. In certain circumstances, when there is heavy rain or there is heavy traffic on the highway or other like situations, in those cases also, the seizure memo can be prepared at a nearby place so that the proceedings can be undertaken calmly or safely. However, it is not permissible for a police officer to pick the contraband from a particular place, then carry it with him to the police station which is situated at a far place and whereafter prepare the seizure memo in the police station premises. The moment this kind of practice is permitted, the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station, the things were recovered from a different place. In that situation, the purity, originality, genuineness, and virtuousness would be lost and at the same time, there would be serious aspersions regarding fairness and genuineness of the factum of seizure.”

(4 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026]

4. Counsel submits that petitioner was intercepted in the night at about 8-9 PM from a place where a patrol-pump was situated nearby and he was taken into custody. 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.

5. Counsel also relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024 whereby bail was granted to the accused after considering the fact that panch witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution as also considering that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that there are serious lacunas in the prosecution case. Counsel submits that it has been admitted by the Seizure Officer in his testimony that the seal which was used during the course of proceeding has been kept in open condition in the Office. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner has been in custody

(5 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026] since 09.07.2025 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about one year and one month and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

6. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14639/2023 that on the ground of the period of incarceration suffered by the 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 Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration.

7. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Bureau opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that recovered contraband is of commercial quantity; therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2325 wherein it has been observed that law does not require only an independent witness to prove a charge attracting the provision of NDPS Act. He further places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sathyan vs. State of Kerala reported in (2023)

(6 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026] 13 SCC 767 wherein it has been observed that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded simply because independent witnesses were not examined.

8. I have considered the contentions.

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 a 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.

10. 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 the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments wherein considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused, facility of bail has been granted and also considering testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer and the fact that the seizure proceedings were not conducted at the place where the petitioner was intercepted, so also the fact that petitioner is languishing in jail since 09.07.2025 and there are no criminal antecedents against him and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the

(7 of 7) [CRLMB-7438/2026] merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application.

11. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Surendra Singh S/o Raghuveer 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.

12. 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 shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him.

13. 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.

14. 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