Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Lokesh S/O Rameshchand vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:18728]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
14358/2025
Sitaram @ Udham Meena S/o Madanlal, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Khadia Police Station Harnavadashahji Dist. Baran Rajasthan.
(At Present Confined In Sub Jail Chhabara).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4256/2026
1. Lokesh S/o Rameshchand, R/o Village Digod Jagir Police
Station Harnavadashahji District Baran. At Present In Sub
Jail, Chhabra District Baran.
2. Rampratap @ Golu S/o Radhakishan, R/o Village Digod Jagir
Police Station Harnavadashahji District Baran. At Present In
Sub Jail, Chhabra District Baran.
—-Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4633/2026
Ramgopal S/o Parmanand, R/o Bhumriya, P.s. Kamkheda, Tehsil
Manoharthana, District Jhalawar Rajasthan ( At Present Confined
In Sub Jail Chhabra, Baran)
—-Petitioner
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (2 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal,
Mr. Harendra Singh,
Mr. Samarth Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, P.P.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
Arguments concluded on ::: April 24, 2026
Reserved on ::: April 24, 2026
Pronounced on ::: May 08, 2026
1. These three bail applications have been filed by the
accused-petitioners under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with FIR No. 94/2025
registered at Police Station Harnavda Shahji, District Baran, for
offence under Sections 8, 15 and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner,
Sitaram, submitted that as per facts on record, five bags
recovered from the vehicle Bolero, are said to have containing the
contraband Doda Chura (Poppy Husk) and on weighing, it was
found 79.400 kg. Learned counsel further submitted that the
seizure memo was prepared on 31.05.2025 and the said
contraband, said to have been in five bags, was marked as ‘A’, ‘B’,
‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ but the Seizure Officer has taken only two samples,
one to be sent for the FSL and other one as a control sample. The
learned counsel also submitted that the samples were required to
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (3 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
be taken from all the five bags and in absence of samples from
each bag, only the contraband recovered from the bags of which
samples have been taken, can be treated to be the contraband
recovered and weight of that comes to be less than commercial
quantity. He also submitted that the inventory was prepared on
06.06.2025 and the samples were sent to the FSL on 11.06.2025,
i.e. after five days’, whereas they were required to send the
samples within 72 hours. Counsel further submitted that the
accused-petitioner is in custody since 31.05.2025 and the Police
after completion of the investigation has submitted charge-sheet
in the matter.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners
Lokesh and Rampratap submitted that the accused-petitioners
have been implicated in this case only on the basis of the
statements of the co-accused. He further submits that there is no
other material evidence on record so as to connect the accused-
petitioners with the alleged offence. Counsel also submitted that
the accused-petitioners are in custody since 19.02.2026 and the
allegation against them is that they loaded the alleged contraband
in the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Ramgopal
submitted that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this
case with the aid of Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. He further
submits that the accused-petitioner has been implicated on the
basis of the statements of the co-accused. He further submits that
the allegations against the accused-petitioner is that he got loaded
the alleged contraband in the vehicle with the help of accused-
Lokesh and Rampratap.
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (4 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed these bail
applications and submitted that the contraband in the present
criminal case is Doda Chura (Poppy Husk), weighing 79.400 kg,
which is more than commercial quantity. He also submitted that
samples of the alleged contraband have been taken as per
provisions of law. He also submitted that the issue of delay in
sending the samples to the FSL, cannot be scrutinized at this
stage, without there being evidence of the material witnesses
before the Trial Court. He furter submitted that the accused-
petitioners have failed to show that they are not guilty, as such
satisfaction is required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public
Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers and other
materials available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner (Sitaram)
has submitted that only two samples have been taken, whereas
the contraband recovered was in five bags and the Seizure Officer
was required to take two samples from each of the bag. He has
referred the judgment passed by this Court in case of Hariram
V/s State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 741/2026 decided on 20.04.2026.
8. As per the facts, in the case of Hariram (Supra),
there was a specific report, i.e., an inventory report, according to
which six bags, containing contraband, were recovered, which
were marked and samples were taken only from two bags.
However, in the present case, five bags containing the alleged
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (5 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
contraband, weighing 79.400 kg of Doda Chura (poppy husk),
have been recovered.
As per the contents of the First Information Report and
the seizure memo, after the samples were taken, the alleged
contraband was sealed and packed in the same separate bags,
which were thereafter marked as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’. This
indicates that before taking samples, the alleged contraband,
which was recovered in five bags, was taken out of those bags and
mixed together, and thereafter kept again in the same bags and
were marked as bags ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’.
Once the recovered contraband in separate bags is
mixed and samples is taken out of that mixture, then those
samples will be treated for whole of the contraband, which might
be later on packed in separate same bags. In view of this
distinguishing feature of the present case from the case of
Hariram (supra), the observations made by this Court in cse of
Hariram (supra) are not applicable to the present case.
9. The second submission made by the learned counsel for
the accused-petitioner (Sitaram) is that the inventory was
prepared on 06.06.2025, whereas the samples were sent to the
FSL on 11.06.2025.
10. This kind of alleged discrepancies in the procedure of
seizure of the contraband, cannot be appreciated at this stage
without there being evidence of the material witness pertaining to
the seizure i.e. Seizure Officer.
11. The Co-ordinate Bench of Principal Seat at Jodhpur in
case of Vijay Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.
Criminal Writ Petition No.770/2026) decided on 10.04.2026
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (6 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
in para Nos.4 to 6 has dealt with such alleged discrepancies and
legality of search and seizure.
“4. Upon a considered evaluation of the submissions
advanced and the material placed on record, this Court
is of the view that the substratum of the petitioner’s
challenge essentially rests upon disputation of the
prosecution narrative, particularly with regard to the
authenticity and credibility of the seizure and arrest
memos, as well as the alleged sequence of events
culminating in his implication.
4.1 It is trite that the criminal justice process unfolds in
a well-defined procedural continuum, commencing from
investigation, followed by submission of the police
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., taking of cognizance
by the competent court, framing of charges, recording
of prosecution evidence, and thereafter affording the
accused an opportunity to enter upon defence. The
stage of adjudication of rival factual claims and
appreciation of evidence is thus statutorily reserved for
trial.
4.2 The petitioner, in essence, seeks pre-trial
adjudication of disputed questions of fact by inviting
this Court to test the veracity of the prosecution case,
particularly on the premise that the recovery is
fabricated and that he was unlawfully detained prior to
the alleged seizure. Such contentions, being
intrinsically evidentiary in nature, necessarily require a
full-fledged trial wherein the prosecution evidence is
subjected to cross-examination and the defence is
afforded an opportunity to substantiate its version.
4.3 The contention of the petitioner regarding
discrepancies in the timing and preparation of memos,
as well as the plea of false implication, constitute
matters squarely falling within the domain of trial
appreciation. These aspects pertain to the credibility,
trustworthiness, and evidentiary value of the
documents prepared during investigation, which cannot
be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction without
a detailed evidentiary inquiry.
4.4 It is further observed that, as per the prosecution
case, a substantial quantity of contraband (ganja) has
been recovered, and there is no categorical material on
record at this stage to conclusively establish that the(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (7 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]recovery was pre-planned, foisted, or fabricated. The
alleged inconsistencies highlighted by the petitioner, at
best, raise triable issues requiring adjudication by the
trial court upon appreciation of evidence.
4.5 This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that entering into an evaluative exercise regarding the
correctness of the recovery memo, arrest memo, or the
sequence of events, at this interlocutory stage, would
amount to pre-empting the trial and rendering findings
on disputed factual issues an exercise which is neither
permissible nor desirable in writ jurisdiction. In my
considered view, such an approach would mean
conducting a mini trial before the actual trial.
4.6 Judicial propriety further mandates that where the
trial is already underway, higher courts ought to refrain
from recording definitive findings on factual
controversies which are sub judice before the trial
court. Any such interference would not only disrupt the
procedural sanctity of trial but may also prejudice
either of the parties.
5. The legal position governing the stage-wise
consideration of defence material stands authoritatively
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh @ Baba, CRLA
No.856/2024 arising of SLP (Criminal)
No.346/2021 decided on 12.02.2024 wherein it has
been unequivocally held that the right of the accused to
rely upon material in support of his defence does not
ordinarily arise at the pre-trial or charge stage, and
such entitlement crystallizes only during the stage of
defence evidence. The Court, relying upon the dictum
in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2025)
1 SCC 568 emphasized that the necessity or
desirability of documents must be assessed with
reference to the stage of proceedings, and that
permitting the accused to invoke defence material
prematurely would be contrary to the statutory scheme
of criminal trial.
5.1 Applying the aforesaid principle to the present
case, the petitioner’s attempt to impeach the
prosecution case on the basis of alleged discrepancies
and defence material at this stage is clearly premature
and legally untenable. The petitioner is, however, at
liberty to raise all such contentions before the trial
court at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (8 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
6. Accordingly, while leaving all the issues raised by the
petitioner particularly concerning the legality of
recovery, authenticity of memos, and alleged false
implication; open to be agitated at the appropriate
stage during trial, this Court refrains from expressing
any opinion on the merits thereof. The petitioner shall
be at liberty to produce all relevant material before the
trial Court for the purpose of its scrutiny at appropriate
stage, in accordance with law, and the trial court is
expected to adjudicate the same uninfluenced by any
observations made herein.”
12. The accused-petitioners Lokesh and Rampratap said to
have been implicated as accused on the basis of the statement of
the co-accused from whose possession the alleged contraband has
been recovered. During investigation, call detail records and other
material were collected by the investigating agency, which show
that the accused-petitioners Lokesh, Rampratap and Ramgopal
were having regular conversation with each other which speaks of
the connectivity of all the accused with each other.
13. As per the investigation report, the accused Sitaram is
said to be with accused- Mahendra in the alleged vehicle from
which the alleged contraband was recovered; however, the
accused Mahendra absconded from the spot. After the arrest of
accused- Mahendra, he was interrogated and he stated that he
had purchased the alleged contraband from one Biramchand
Lodha, and the petitioner Lokesh is said to have loaded that
alleged contraband in the vehicle. It has also been brought on
record that two other criminal cases of a similar nature,
punishable under the NDPS Act, have been registered against the
accused-petitioner Lokesh, and one such criminal case is pending
against the accused-petitioner Ramgopal.
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (9 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
14. On the scrutiny of the investigation report so far,
though, the investigation against the accused-petitioners Lokesh,
Rampratap and Ramgopal is still not completed, this Court prima
facie finds that the petitioners have not been able to convince this
Court as regards the satisfaction required under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, that petitioners are not guilty of an offence.
15. This Court in case of Shakti Gurjar Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.13814/2023) decided on 30.07.2024 has observed as
under:-
“22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narcotics
Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal
Nos.1001-1002 of 2022) decided on 19.07.2022 after
taking into consideration the provisions of section 37 of the
Act of 1985 has observed in paras 11, 12, 13 and 14 as
under:-
“11. It is evident from a plain reading of the non-
obstante clause inserted in sub-section (1) and the
conditions imposed in sub-section (2) of Section 37
that there are certain restrictions placed on the power
of the Court when granting bail to a person accused of
having committed an offence under the NDPS Act. Not
only are the limitations imposed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be kept in
mind, the restrictions placed under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 37 are also to be factored in. The
conditions imposed in sub- section (1) of Section 37 is
that (i) the Public Prosecutor ought to be given an
opportunity to oppose the application moved by an
accused Criminal Appeal Nos. ………… of 2022 @
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.
6128-6129 OF 2021 person for release and (ii) if such
an application is opposed, then the Court must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the person accused is not guilty of such
an offence. Additionally, the Court must be satisfied
that the accused person is unlikely to commit any
offence while on bail.
12. The expression “reasonable grounds” has come
up for discussion in several rulings of this Court. In(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (10 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]“Collector of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva
Nodira” a decision rendered by a Three Judges Bench of
this Court, it has been held thus:-
“7. The limitations on granting of bail come in
only when the question of granting bail arises on
merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the
Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which
really have relevance so far as the present
accused-respondent is concerned, are: the
satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. 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” means something more than prima facie
grounds. It contemplates substantial probable
causes for believing that the accused is not guilty
of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief
contemplated in the provision requires existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient
in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.”
[emphasis added]
13. The expression “reasonable ground” came up for
discussion in “State of Kerala and others Vs. Rajesh
and others” and this Court has observed as below:
“20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means
something more than prima facie grounds. It
contemplates substantial probable causes for
believing that the accused is not guilty of the
alleged offence. The reasonable belief
contemplated in the provision requires existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient
in themselves to justify satisfaction that the
accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the
case on hand, the High Court seems to have
completely overlooked the underlying object of
Section 37 that in addition to the limitations
provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the
time being in force, regulating the grant of bail,
its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the
NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.” [emphasis
added](Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (11 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
14. To sum up, the expression “reasonable grounds”
used in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 37
would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the
Court to believe that the accused person is not guilty of
the alleged offence. For arriving at any such
conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in
a case that can persuade the Court to believe that the
accused person would not have committed such an
offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is
an additional consideration that the accused person is
unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.”
23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported
in (1980) 1 SCC 81 has observed as under:-
“18. The conditions which courts have to be cognizant
of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is “not guilty of such offence” and that
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
What is meant by “not guilty” when all the evidence is
not before the court? It can only be a 18 As per the
counter-affidavit dated 21.02.2023 filed by the
respondent-state before this court. prima facie
determination. That places the court’s discretion within
a very narrow margin. Given the mandate of the
general law on bails (Sections 436, 437 and 439, CrPC)
which classify offences based on their gravity, and
instruct that certain serious crimes have to be dealt
with differently while considering bail applications, the
additional condition that the court should be satisfied
that the accused (who is in law presumed to be
innocent) is not guilty, has to be interpreted
reasonably. Further the classification of offences under
Special Acts (NDPS Act, etc.), which apply over and
above the ordinary bail conditions required to be
assessed by courts, require that the court records its
satisfaction that the accused might not be guilty of the
offence and that upon release, they are not likely to
commit any offence. These two conditions have the
effect of overshadowing other conditions. In cases
where bail is sought, the court assesses the material
on record such as the nature of the offence, likelihood
of the accused co-operating with the investigation, not
fleeing from justice: even in serious offences like
murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. On the other hand, the
court in these cases under such special Acts, have to(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (12 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]address itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the
accused and the likelihood of them not committing any
offence upon release. This court has generally upheld
such conditions on the ground that liberty of such
citizens have to – in cases when accused of offences
enacted under special laws – be balanced against the
public interest. ”
24. The recent view of the Hon’ble Apex Court and
other Courts after having due consideration to the
provisions of section 37 of the Act of 1985 is that while
granting bail to a person accused of an offence punishable
for the offence involving commercial quantity, the Court
should record its satisfaction 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.
25. The counsel appearing for the accused petitioner
has referred the judgment of Ranjitsingh
Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra) relating to a case for
offence under the provisions of Maharashtra Control of
Organised Crime Act, 1999, wherein there is a similar
section like section 37 of the Act of 1985. In that case, the
Hon’ble Apex Court granted bail.
26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Mohammed
Anis Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1994
Supp(1) SCC 145 has observed as under:-
“Apex Court has been conferred extraordinary powers
by Article 142(1) of the Constitution so that it can do
complete justice in any cause or matter pending before
it. The question regarding the width and amplitude of
this Court’s power under Article 142(1) came up for
consideration before this Court in Delhi Judicial Service
Assn., Delhi v. State of Gujarat and again before the
Constitution Bench in Union Carbide Corpn. v. Union of
India. In the first case this Court observed that the
power conferred by Article 142 (1) coupled with the
plenary powers under Articles 32 and 136 empowers
the Court to pass such orders as it deems necessary to
do complete justice to the cause or matter brought
before it. This power to do complete justice is entirely
of different level and of a different quality which cannot
be limited or restricted by provisions contained in
statutory law. No enactment made by the Central or
State Legislature can limit or restrict the Court’s
powers under Article 142(1) though while exercising it(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (13 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]the Court may have regard to statutory provisions (See
paragraphs 50 and 51 of the judgment). In the second
case this Court clarified that the expression “cause or
matter” must be construed in a wide sense to
effectuate the purpose of conferment of power. This
power has been conferred on the Apex Court only and
the exercise of that power is not dependent or
conditioned by any statutory provision. The
constitutional plenitude of the powers of the Apex
Court is to ensure due and proper administration of
justice and is intended to be co-extensive in each case
with the needs of justice of a given case and to
meeting any exigency. Very wide powers have been
conferred on this Court for due and proper
administration of justice and whenever the Court sees
that the demand of justice warrants exercise of such
powers, it will reach out to ensure that justice is done
by resorting to this extraordinary power conferred to
meet precisely such a situation. True it is, that the
power must be exercised sparingly for furthering the
ends of justice but it cannot be said that its exercise is
conditioned by any statutory provision. Any such view
would defeat the very purpose and object of
conferment of this extraordinary power. In the Union
Carbide case this Court observed as under: (SCC
p.634, para 83)
“It is necessary to set at rest certain misconceptions in
the arguments touching the scope of the powers of this
Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution…. The
proposition that a provision in any ordinary law
irrespective of the importance of the public policy on
which it is founded, operates to limit the powers of the
Apex Court under Article 142(1) is unsound and
erroneous.”
Proceeding further, the Court observed: (SCC p.635,
para 83)
“The power under Article 142 is at an entirely different
level and of a different quality. Prohibitions or
limitations on provisions contained in ordinary laws
cannot, ipso facto, act as prohibitions or limitations on
the constitutional powers under Article 142.”
That is so for the obvious reason that statutory
provisions cannot override constitutional provisions and
Article 142(1) being a constitutional power cannot be
limited or conditioned by any statutory provision.”
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (14 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
27. This Court has to go by the provisions of
statutory law because any order of the Court without
considering the provisions of the law in force or contrary to
the same is said to be per-incurrium and this Court would
like to restrain itself from passing such order.
28. In the present case there is recovery of
contraband weighing more than the commercial quantity as
notified and also there are five other criminal cases pending
against the petitioner. There are no reasons for satisfaction
of this Court so as to believe that the accused petitioner is
not guilty of offences under the provisions of the Act of
1985 and that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail as he is already facing five other criminal cases.
29. Drug abuse has taken its toll in almost all the
districts of Rajasthan. The addicts primarily belong to youth
age. The high rate of drug consumption is leading to issues
like illegal trade, drug trafficking, and smuggling. The
problem of drug addiction has a significant bearing on drug
trafficking which has become a significant challenge for
governments and social reformers. The NCB reports that
the main internal factor for drug trafficking in India is the
illicit cultivation of opium, poppy and cannabis. Also, the
diversion from licit opium sources to illegal opium
production is a major concern. In the trends of 2020,
Rajasthan is among the 3 major states, along with Uttar
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, from where the opium is
trafficked to other parts of the country.”
16. Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the
alleged contraband is weighing more than commercial quantity
and is said to have been recovered from the possession of the
accused Sitaram and there is evidence against the other accused
petitioners as regards their connectivity with the possession and
transportation of the alleged contraband and so also the fact that
other criminal cases of similar nature are also pending against
them, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners
on bail.
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:18728] (15 of 15) [CRLMB-14358/2025]
17. Accordingly, all these three bail applications filed by the
accused-petitioners are dismissed.
18. A copy of this order be placed in connected bail
applications.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
SHRUTI SHARMA
(Uploaded on 12/05/2026 at 07:47:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 12:58:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
