Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rakesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7932]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 920/2026
Rakesh S/o Prem Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Gadariyawas, Police Station Choti Sadri, District
Partapgarh,rajasthan Lodged In District Jail,partapgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
16/02/2026
The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details
of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
1. FIR Number 70/2025
2. Police Station Choti Sadri
3. District Pratapgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 of NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any Section 25 & 29 NDPS Act
The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed by this Court in
S.B. CRLMB No.11015/2025, however, liberty was granted to the
petitioner to file afresh application after filing of the challan.
Now the challan has been filed, hence this second bail
application.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 05:25:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:36:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7932] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-920/2026]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended
that the alleged contraband was recovered from an abandoned
vehicle and no person was apprehended at the spot. It is
submitted that one Constable-Dharmendra claims to have
identified the petitioner at the place of occurrence, which
identification, in absence of any independent corroboration, is
doubtful and unreliable. It is further contended that the petitioner
is neither the driver of the vehicle nor is registered owner, thus,
no direct or conscious possession can be attributed to him.
It is also submitted that the father of the petitioner, namely
Premchand, had submitted an application before the concerned
authority along with Google location details and CCTV footage,
specifically asserting that the petitioner was not present at the
spot at the relevant time and was instead at his agricultural field
and playing video games.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner has been named by co-accused Devkaran, however,
there is no call details or mobile tower location qua the petitioner
available on record. It is further submitted that the statement of
co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner as substantial
evidence. It is further submitted that co-accused, namely Devi Lal
and Devkaran, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court
vide orders dated 30.01.2026 & 26.11.2025 passed in S.B. CRLMB
No. 14923/2025 & 14262/2025. The another co-accused, Dinesh,
has also been granted bail by the learned trial Court. Moreover,
the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in judicial
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 05:25:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:36:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7932] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-920/2026]
custody since 27.07.2025. The charge-sheet has already been
filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude,
therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that the contraband
was recovered from the vehicle in question and, as per the
investigation, the petitioner was escorting the said vehicle.
However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that there are
no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the above
named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul passed in Criminal Appeal No.137
of 2009, explained the principles applicable in grant of Bail in
offences under the NDPS Act, the relevant paras are reproduced
here:
“12. Section 37 of the NDPS Act, as substituted by Act 2 of 1989
with effect from 29th May, 1989 with further amendment by Act 9
of 2001 reads as follows: “37. Offences to be cognizable and non-
bailable.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 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
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court
is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 05:25:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:36:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7932] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-920/2026]is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (12 of 1974), or any other law for the
time being in force on granting of bail.”
13.It is plain from a bare reading of the non-obstante clause in the
Section and sub-section (2) thereof that the power to grant bail to a
person accused of having committed offence under the NDPS Act is
not only subject to the limitations imposed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject to the
restrictions placed by sub-clause (b) of sub- section (1) of Section
37 of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an opportunity to the Public
Prosecutor to oppose the application for such release, the other
twin conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the Court that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail, have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the
conditions are cumulative and not alternative. The satisfaction
contemplated regarding the accused being not guilty, has to be
based on “reasonable grounds”. The expression `reasonable
grounds’ has not been defined in the said Act but means something
more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable
causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence he
is charged with. The reasonable belief contemplated in turn points
to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in
themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence. [Vide Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker
Kesari2] Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the aspects, noted
above, is sine qua non for granting of bail under the NDPS Act.
14. We may, however, hasten to add that while considering an
application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the Court is not called upon to record a finding of `not guilty’. At
this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the
evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether
or not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act.
What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is
charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence
under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the Court
about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited
purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on
bail.”
Considering the aforesaid principle, the fact that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot; recovery was affected
from an abandoned vehicle, there are no independent witness; co-
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 05:25:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:36:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7932] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-920/2026]
accused Devilal, Devkaran and Dinesh have already been enlarged
on bail; there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner; the
petitioner has been in custody since 27.07.2025; there is no
ground to believe that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he
would again indulge in committing similar offences and would
influence the witness, and trial of the case will take significant
time; without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the
case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483
of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial court, for his/her/their appearance
before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
244-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 05:25:00 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:36:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
