Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Anil Singh Tanwar S/O Raghuveer Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29769]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11833/2026
CNR: RJHC020685912026 | URN: CRLMB / 21786U / 2026
Anil Singh Tanwar S/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Tanwaro Ki Dhani Tan Pachlangi, Police Station Udaipurwati,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
(At present confined in District Jail, Jhunjhunu)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
30/07/2026
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur
izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk
mn;iqjokVh] ftyk >qa>quw esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 123@2026
vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8@20] 25 Lokid vkS”kf/k ,oa eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ
vf/kfu;e] 1985 esa is’k fd;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS
fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us dksbZ vijk/k ugha fd;k gSA izdj.k esa tCr’kqnk xkatk
20-141 fdyksxzke crk;k x;k gS] tcfd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj
iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka o cht dks feykdj dqy otu 20-141 fdyksxzke
crk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr xkats ds ikS/ks dh ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka o
cht ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼ iii½¼b½ ds rgr xkats dh ifjHkk”kk esa
ugha vkrs gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 13-06-2026 ls vfHkj{kk esa gSA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dksbZ vkijkf/kd izdj.k fopkjk/khu ugha gSaA
(Uploaded on 31/07/2026 at 03:05:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:51:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29769] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026]
izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa le; yxsxkA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur izkFkZuk
i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mls tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu
fofu’p; izLrqr fd;s%&
1. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor Vs The State of Gujarat; 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 925.
2. Lekhraj Meena @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 7068/2023; Order Dated 28.06.2023.
3. Indrapal Vs State of Rajasthan and Another Connected Matter; S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9414/2025; Order Dated 06.12.2025.
4. Mohammad Gulam Moinuddin Vs State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No. 11504/2019; Order Dated 06.09.2019.
5. Rajesh Sharma Vs The State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No. 2376/2024; Order Dated 27.02.2024.
6. Yogesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Another Connected Matter; S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 9245/2026; Order Dated 21.07.2026.
fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,oa lgvfHk;qDr jkts’k Hkkaofj;k ds dCts’kqnk okgu Loh¶V
dh fMXxh esa ls 20-141 fdyksxzke ‘kq) xkatk cjken gqvk gS] tks okf.kfT;d
ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk gSA lgvfHk;qDr jkts’k Hkkaofj;k dk tekur izkFkZuk
i= fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr%
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs
gq, ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA
eSaus mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh
dk voyksdu fd;kA
orZeku izdj.k esa rF;ksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 12-06-2025 dks
Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk mn;iqjokVh] ftyk >qa>quw }kjk nkSjkus fuxjkuh
(Uploaded on 31/07/2026 at 03:05:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:51:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29769] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026]
Loh¶V dkj esa vkifÙktud oLrq gksus dh laHkkouk ds vk/kkj ij mDr
Loh¶V dkj dks jksdk rks pkyd lhV ij jkts’k Hkkaofj;k o cxy okyh lhV
ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfuy raoj ik;s x;s vkSj dkj dh fMXxh esa xkats ls
Hkjk gqvk dV~Vk ik;k x;kA dV~Vs ds vanj gYds Hkwjs jax dh IykfLVd dh
Vsi;qDr iklZyuqek iSdsV ik;s x;s] ftuds vanj gjs iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka
o chtuqek xkatk Hkjk ik;k x;kA Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk mn;iqjokVh us
IykfLVd dh ikWyhFkhu] iklZyuqek Vsi;qDr dk otu fd;k rks dqy otu
680 xzke gksuk ik;k x;k vkSj xkats dk ‘kq) otu 20-141 fdyksxzke gksuk
ik;k x;kA xkats ds ‘kq) otu esa gjs iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka] o cht dk
otu gS ;k ugha bl rF; dks QnZ tCrh esa ugha crk;k x;k gSA QnZ tCrh
eknd inkFkZ xkatk esa xkatk dk ‘kq) otu 20-141 fdyksxzke gksuk crk;k
x;k gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk gSA mDr xkatk esa gjs
iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka] cht fdruh ek=k esa gS vkSj mDr iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka]
dfy;ka] cht ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼ iii½¼b½ ds rgr xkats dh
ifjHkk”kk esa vkrs gS ;k ugha vkrs gS] bl rF; dks fo}ku fopkj.k
U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkoxq.k ij r; fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh;
mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu’p; “Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar
Singh Alias Pappu; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346″ ds lqlaxr Hkkx dks ;gka
m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%&
“14. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing the impugned
order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which, inter alia,
provides that no person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity
shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are
satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and
that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail.
15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced hereinbelow:–
“37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and(Uploaded on 31/07/2026 at 03:05:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:51:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29769] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026]
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.”
16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an
offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released
on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.”
blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu’p; “State
of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa; 2023 INSC 618” ds iSjk la[;k 14]
15] 16] 17 dks Hkh ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr
gksxk%&
14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in
Lalrintluanga Sailo (Supra) while setting aside the bail granted by
the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin
conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the
concerned Court. It was observed:
10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the
NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the
consistent view of this Court that while considering the
application for bail made by an accused involved in an offence
under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording
a finding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which
is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS
Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such
applications.”
15. To the similar effect, this Court in State by the Inspector of
Police v. B. Ramu reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions
laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while
entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of
narcotic drugs. [See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)]
16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v.
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade observed that the mandatory nature of
Section 37 cannot be dispensed with:
“12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafficking in an
organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing
with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
is made out in the present matter.
13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused
has been charged with offences punishable with ten to
twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that
the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably
long time.”
17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now
proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned
decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it comes to
(Uploaded on 31/07/2026 at 03:05:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:51:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29769] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026]
cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory
requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is
not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a
scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was
mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident
that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the
twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law.
mijksDr fofu’p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vk/kkj ij okf.kfT;d
ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k esa ik;s x;s eknd inkFkZ ds ekeys esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr
tekur dk vf/kdkjh rHkh ekuk tk ldrk gS] tc mlds fo:) dksbZ
vijk/k izFken`”V;k ugha curk gksA bl izdj.k esa xkats dk ‘kq) otu
20-141 fdyksxzke crk;k x;k gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk
gSA
izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,oa lgvfHk;qDr }kjk okgu Loh¶V esa
okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k ds eknd inkFkZ dk ifjogu fd;k tk jgk
FkkA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k vR;ar xaHkhj fdLe dk gSA
izdj.k esa vHkh vuqla/kku yafcr gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vHkh vkjksi
i= izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA
vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:)
vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.k&nks”kksa ij
fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk bl izØe ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k
tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA
ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfuy flag raoj iq= j?kqohj flag dh vksj
ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
34/AKSHAY KUMAR PAREEK/P.A.
(Uploaded on 31/07/2026 at 03:05:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:51:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
