Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Yash Badetiya S/O Shri Ajay Kumar … vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 August, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29989]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8227/2026
CNR: RJHC020498962026 | URN: CRLMB / 15027U / 2026
Yash Badetiya S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Badetiya, Aged 24 Years, R/o
House No. 2, Ramnagar Colony, Mansinghpura, Tonk Road, Police
Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur East.
(Accused Petitioner Is In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Non-Petitioner
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia
Ms. Meeta Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
03/08/2026
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
vkn’kZ uxj ftyk t;iqj flVh ¼iwoZ½ esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k
106@2026 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8] 22] 20] 29 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 fnukad 03-05-2026 ls vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS rFkk og
uo;qod gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls eknd inkFkZ cjken ugha gqvk gS]
oju lgvfHk;qDr esgqy vjksM+k ds dCts ls eknd inkFkZ cjken gqvk gSA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) tks vU; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 211@2026
iqfyl Fkkuk egs’k uxj] ftyk t;iqj flVh ¼nf{k.k½ crkbZ xbZ gS] mlesa
mlds dCts ls okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de ek=k dk 94 xzke xkatk cjken gqvk
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 09:06:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29989] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8227/2026]
gS] blds vfrfjDr izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dksbZ vU; vkjksfir vijk/k
ugha gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus lgvfHk;qDr ftlds
dCts ls eknd inkFkZ feyk gS] ml lgvfHk;qDr esgqy vjksM+k dks okf.kfT;d
ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k ds eknd inkFkZ dh vkiwfrZ dh gSA izdj.k esa vkjksi
i= izLrqr gksuk ‘ks”k gSA 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
fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us lgvfHk;qDr esgqy vjksM+k dks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd
ek=k ds eknd inkFkZ dh vkiwfrZ dh gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) eknd
inkFkZ ls lacaf/kr ,d vU; izdj.k fopkjk/khu gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds
fo#) yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, rFkk 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 izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus
lgvfHk;qDr esgqy vjksMk dks voS/k eknd inkFkZ ,y-,l-Mh- CykWV 0-25 xzke
dqy ux 24] ,e-Mh-,e-,-] fiYl ¼xksfy;ka½ dqy ux 18 otu 7 xzke 15
feyhxzke ,oa 16 xzke 50 feyhxzke vkWxsZfud ¼gkbZMªks½ xkatk dh vkiwfrZ dhA
vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ;g rF; lkeus vk;k gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk ?kVuk
vkSj ?kVuk ls iwoZ voS/k eknd inkFkksZa dh vkiwfrZ djus] iSlksa dk ysu&nsu
djus] ckrphr djus o pSV] dkWy ykWx vkfn djus ds rF; lkeus vk, gSa]
ftuds Ldzhu’kkWV fy, tkdj i=koyh esa j[ks x, gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds
fo#) eknd inkFkZ ls lacaf/kr ,d vU; vijk/k dk vkjksi izFke lwpuk
fjiksVZ la[;k 211@2026 iqfyl Fkkuk egs’k uxj] ftyk t;iqj flVh
¼nf{k.k½ esa ntZ gS] mlesa mlds dCts ls 94 xzke xkatk cjken gqvk gSA ,slh
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 09:06:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29989] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8227/2026]
fLFkfr esa ;g Li”V gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) eknd inkFkksZa ls
lacaf/kr vU; vijk/k dk vkjksi Hkh gSA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij
okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k ds eknd inkFkkZa dh vkiwfrZ djus ds
vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vU; vkijkf/kd izdj.k dks
n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, bl izdj.k esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e ds
izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA eknd inkFkksZa ds izdj.k esa vR;ar o`f) gks jgh gS]
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us bls xaHkhjrk ls fy;k 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 ofence involving commercial
quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down
therein are satisfed, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfed that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an
ofence and that he is not likely to commit any such ofence while on bail.
15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced hereinbelow:–
“37. Ofences to be cognizable and nonbailable.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every ofence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an ofence punishable for 2[ofences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for ofences 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
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such ofence and that he is not likely to commit any ofence
while on bail.”
16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of
an ofence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be
released on bail unless the court is satisfed that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an ofence and that he is
not likely to commit any ofence while on bail.”
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 09:06:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29989] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8227/2026]
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 ofence
under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording
a fnding 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 efect, 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 trafcking 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 ofences 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
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
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 09:06:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29989] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8227/2026]
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.
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 ;’k cMsfr;k iq= Jh vt; dqekj cMsfr;k
dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk
gSA
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
43/KISHAN SONI
(Uploaded on 04/08/2026 at 05:12:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/08/2026 at 09:06:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
