Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mahendra Kachhawa S/O Sh. Bhanwar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:30254]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9080/2026
CNR: RJHC020564132026 | URN: CRLMB / 16633U / 2026
Mahendra Kachhawa S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 45 Years,
R/o In Front of H.M.T., Beawar Road, Ajmer.
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
04/08/2026
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
DykWd Vkoj ftyk vtesj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 156@2025
vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8] 20 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 18-11-2025 ls vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS] mlds
fo#) vkjksi i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) e`R;q naM ;k
vkthou dkjkokl ls naMuh; vijk/k dk vkjksi ugha gSA Lora= lk{khx.k dh
mifLFkfr esa eknd inkFkZ tCr ugha gqvk gSA ftl okgu ls eknd inkFkZ
cjken gqvk gS] og okgu VSDlh gS vkSj izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds iathd`r LokfeRo
dk okgu gSA lgvfHk;qDrx.k lqjsUnz flag o lyhe phrk }kjk VSDlh
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ls yh xbZ Fkh vkSj VSDlh ds :i esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr okgu
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30254] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-9080/2026]
dks pyk jgk FkkA lgvfHk;qDrx.k }kjk D;k lkeku ys tk;k tk jgk gS]
bldk dksbZ nkf;Ro izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ij ugha gSA okgu ds vanj ,d dV~Vs
esa 40 iSdsV feys gSaA fof/k&vuqlkj izR;sd iSdsV esa ls uewuk fof/k foKku
iz;ksx’kkyk esa Hksts tkus ds fy, fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] ysfdu bl izdj.k esa
ugha fy;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ls tCrh lw;kZLr ds i’pkr o lw;ksZn;
ls iwoZ dh xbZ gSA ,u-Mh-ih-,l vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh /kkjk 42 esa of.kZr
izko/kku dh ikyuk ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k ls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks nks”kh
ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl izdj.k esa dV~Vk iSdsV] FkSfy;ksa dk otu Hkh
xkats ds otu esa tksM+ fn;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugha ekuk tk
ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls okf.kfT;d ek=k esa eknd inkFkZ
cjken gqvk gSA vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh /kkjk 42] 50] 57 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa dh
ikyuk bl izdj.k esa ugha gks ikbZ gSA eknd inkFkZ iklZy ds ek/;e ls
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gS oju vU; O;fDr }kjk fn;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks xyr vk/kkjksa ij vfHk;qDr cuk;k x;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
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk”kd us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu
fofu’p; izLrqr fd;k gSa%&
1- Shambhu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, Through PP; S.B.
Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 217/2026; order dated
06.03.2026.
fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk
21-220 fdyksxzke xkatk cjken gqvk gS rFkk mlds fo#) iwoZ esa 3 vU;
vkijkf/kd izdj.k ntZ jgs gSaA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) yafcr
vkijkf/kd izdj.k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq, rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#)
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30254] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-9080/2026]
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 ?kVuk ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 17-11-2025 dks
le; lk;a 06-35 ih-,e- ij bZdks dkj la[;k vkj-ts 01&Vh-,- 5718 esa
pkyd lhV ij cSBs izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr egsUnz dPNkok rFkk vU;
lgvfHk;qDrx.k lqjsUnz flag o lyhe phrk] lyhe mQZ yaxMk dh mifLFkfr
esa okgu ds vanj dV~Vs esa j[ks 21-220 fdyksxzke xkatk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr o
vU; lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds la;qDr dCts ls cjken gqvk gSA dV~Vs o FkSfy;ksa
dk otu feykdj eknd inkFkZ dk otu 21-220 fdyksxzke Fkk ;k ugha rFkk
FkSfy;ksa o dV~Vs ds otu dks mDr eknd inkFkZ ds otu ls i`Fkd ugha
djus ij mldk D;k izHkko gksxk] bl rF; dk vo/kkj.k xq.kkoxq.kksa ij
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk ldrk gSA blds vfrfjDr
vf/kfu;e] 1985 dh /kkjk 42] 50] 57 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa dh ikyuk dh xbZ
gS ;k ugha dh xbZ] ;fn ugha dh xbZ gS rks mldk D;k izHkko gksxk] bl
rF; dk vo/kkj.k Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tk ldrk gSA
/kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk vf/kfu;e ds varxZr izLrqr bl
izkFkZuk i= esa U;k;ky; dks izdj.k dks xq.kkoxq.kksa ij fu.khZr ugha djuk gSA
bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr o vU; lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds la;qDr dCts ls
21-220 fdyksxzke xkatk cjken gqvk gS] tks okf.kft;d ek=k ls vf/kd gSA
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) iwoZ esa 3 izdj.k ntZ gksuk crk, x, gSa]
ftlesa ,d izdj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 95@2003 varxZr /kkjk 498,]
406 Hkk-na-la- esa 2 o”kZ dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o 1 gtkj #i, ds vFkZnaM ls
nafMr fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) izFken`”V~;k ekeyk ugha
curk gks ;g bl Lrj ij izFken`”V~;k Li”V ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vU; vkijkf/kd izdj.k dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30254] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-9080/2026]
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 lik ely to commit any such ofence while on bailo
15. For the sak e of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced hereinbelow:–
“37o Ofences to be cognizable and nonbailableo-
(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 lik ely to commit any ofence
while on bailo”
16o 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 lik ely to commit any ofence while on bailo”
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%&
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30254] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-9080/2026]
14o 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 Courto It was observed:
10o 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 impermissibleo 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
applicationso”
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 drugso [See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)]16o 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:
“12o Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafck ing in an
organized mannero Consequently, no case for dispensing
with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act is made out in the present mattero13o 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 timeo”
17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now
proceed to examine the impugned ordero 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 consideredo It is
not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantityo In
such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions
enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was
mandatoryo 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 conditionso In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in the eyes of lawo
izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr o vU; lgvfHk;qDrx.k ds la;qDr dCts ls
21-220 fdyksxzke eknd inkFkZ cjken gqvk gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:30254] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-9080/2026]
vf/kd gS] 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 egsUnz dPNkok iq= Jh Hkaoj yky dh vksj
ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
pwafd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfHkj{kk esa gS] vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls
;g vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd os izdj.k ds Rofjr xfr ls fuLrkj.k dk iz;kl
djsA
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
30/KISHAN SONI
(Uploaded on 06/08/2026 at 01:48:04 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/08/2026 at 05:56:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
