Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ajay Yadav S/O Shri Karmveer Yadav vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:12675]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal 7th Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2083/2026
Ajay Yadav S/o Shri Karmveer Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Kosali Tehsil Kosali, Dist. Rewari (Haryana) (The Accused Peti-
tioner Presently Confined In Sub Jail Neema Ka Thana Dist.
Sikar).
---Accused-Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Special PP (Narcotics Control Bureau)
Information Officer, Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Vibhuti Sharma with
Ms. Anindya Gupta
Ms. Suman Kalal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl. PP with
Mr. Vaibhav Jhankara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
1 Arguments concluded on 25.03.2026
2 Order reserved on 25.03.2026
3 Full Order or operative part pronounced Full Order
4 Pronounced on 01.04.2026
1. The instant Seventh bail application has been filed under
Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-
applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 08(10)(10)
(01)/NCV/JZU/2018 registered at Police Station N.C.B., Jodhpur
(Raj.) for the offence(s) under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of NDPS
Act, 1985.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:46:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12675] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026]
present case. It was contended that as per the prosecution’s own
record, no contraband has been recovered from the personal
possession of the applicant, and the alleged recovery is attributed
solely to the vehicle, not to the physical possession of the
applicant. It was also submitted that a co-accused arising out of
the same FIR, involving the same vehicle and the same alleged
recovery, has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018. Additionally, it was
apprised to the Court that the applicant has been in judicial
custody since 04.01.2018, and possesses deep roots in society.
3. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor had vehemently
opposed the present bail application, and submitted that as per
the inspection conducted by the Police Department, and report
submitted thereafter, the applicant was apprehended while driving
the vehicle from which contraband, weighing 40.080 kilograms of
ganja, was recovered, which is far in excess of the notified
commercial quantity i.e. 20 Kilograms. It was submitted that the
arrest of the applicant was effected on 04.01.2018, and the
applicant made statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act,
wherein he has admitted his role in the alleged offence.
4. It was also submitted that the applicant was earlier granted
interim bail; however, he violated the conditions thereof by
absconding, as a consequence of which non-bailable warrants
were issued, followed by proceedings for proclamation. During the
said period, another FIR bearing No. 211 came to be registered
against the applicant at Police Station Jhojun Kalan, Haryana,
under Section 20 of the NDPS Act; therefore, enlarging him on bail
shall hamper the entire process, moreso, he shall be a threat to
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:46:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12675] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026]
society. It was further submitted that as per the custody
certificate, the applicant has undergone custody of only about
three years, and that he was re-arrested after having absconded.
Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel representing the
accused-applicant, pertaining to prolonged incarceration, is not
tenable to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
particularly in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband.
5. In support of the arguments made insofar, learned Special
Public Prosecutor had placed reliance upon a catena of orders
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, NCB vs. Mohit
Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374; Virupakshappa
Gouda vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC
406; Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, reported in (1999) 9
SCC 429; and Union of India vs. Vigin K. Varghese (2025
INSC 1316), and it was contended that prolonged incarceration
or anticipated delay in trial cannot, by itself, constitute
“reasonable grounds” for grant of bail when the rigours of Section
37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. It was submitted that in cases
involving commercial quantity, the twin conditions stipulated
under Section 37 must be satisfied, and unless the same are met,
grant of bail remains an exception rather than the rule.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the recovery effected in
the present case is of commercial quantity, i.e. 40.080 Kilograms
of ganja, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:46:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12675] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026]
Act. In such cases, bail can be granted only upon satisfaction of
the twin conditions, namely:
(i) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused
is not guilty of the alleged offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
In the present case, the contraband in substantial quantity
has been recovered from the vehicle being driven by the applicant.
The applicant has also, prima facie, admitted his involvement in
his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Additionally, the
conduct of the applicant in absconding for years altogether,
committing offences of akin nature (subsequent FIR also being
registered for offences under the provisions of NDPS Act), after
being granted interim bail, leading to issuance of non-bailable
warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings, disentitles
him from seeking discretionary relief. The contention regarding
parity with the co-accused does not persuade this Court in view of
the distinct role attributed to the present applicant, who was
allegedly driving the vehicle carrying the contraband, coupled with
his subsequent conduct.
8. Further, qua the argument of prolonged incarceration it can
be noted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohit Aggarwal (supra) and other orders, as relied
upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, mere length of
custody or possible delay in trial cannot, by itself, be a ground to
grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity, unless the
statutory conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied.
9. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, this
Court is not satisfied that the applicant has been able to make out
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:46:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12675] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026]
a case fulfilling the twin conditions mandated under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK /
(Uploaded on 01/04/2026 at 05:46:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/04/2026 at 09:14:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
