Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mannalal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:18340) on 20 April, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:18340]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8710/2025
Mannalal S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 40 Years, House No
208 Ward No 12 Rewali Dewali Ps Neemach City District
Neemach Mp (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail, Pindwada)
----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 YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
Arguments Concluded on 08/04/2026
Order Reserved on 08/04/2026
Full order Pronounced
Date of Pronouncement 20/04/2026
01- izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu i= vUrxZr
/kkjk 483 ch-,u-,l-,l- ¼439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk½] iqfyl Fkkuk fi.MokMk] ftyk
fljksgh esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 394@2023] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk
8@18 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa tekur ij fjgk fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk
izLrqr gqvk gSA
02- cgl tekur vkosnu lquh rFkk miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
03- izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k gS
fd bl ekeys esa izFke tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 08-08-2024 dks QnZ tCrh ds
xokgku ds dFku ntZ fd;s tkus ds i'pkr iqu% tekur vkosnu izLrqr djus dh
Lora=rk ds lkFk tfj, foMªksoy [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA vc bl ekeys esa tCrh
xokg ds c;ku crkSj ih-MCY;w01 o ih-MCY;w02 ys[kc) fd;s tk pqds gSaA bl ekeys
esa lSEiy ,Q-,l-,y- esa nsjh ls Hkstk x;k gS vkSj /kkjk 42 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds
ijarqd dh ikyuk ugha dh gSA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr <kbZ lky ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py
jgk gSA vHkh rd dsoy nks xokg ds gh c;ku gq, gSaA fopkj.k esa le; yxus dh
laHkkouk gSA bl vk/kkj ij tekur ij fjgk fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA vius rdksZa
ds leFkZu esa esjk /;ku ekuuh; mPPkre U;k;ky; ds fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa
dh vksj vkdf"kZr fd;k%&
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
01. Wajid Ali @ Tinku Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP(Crl.) No. 7049/2025
Date of order 09-02-2026
02. Rambabu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No. 5648/2025
Date of order 13-08-2025
04- blds foijhr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us tekur ds f}rh; izkFkZuk&i=
dk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr bl ekeys esa
eq[; vfHk;qDr gSA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls vQhe dk nw/k 4 fdyks 760 xzke tCr
fd;k x;k gS] tks okf.kfT;d izd`fr dk ekeyk gSA blesa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV
dh viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ka fo|eku ugha gksuk crkrs gq, tekur dk izkFkZuk&i=
[kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
05- eSaus mi;qZDr rdkZsa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA
loZizFke fof/kd fLFkfr ij bl ekeys esa fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA /kkjk 37
¼1½¼ch½ ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV esa fuEukuqlkj izko/kku fd;k x;k gS fd%&
"37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
--
(a) ------
(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 is not guilty of such offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
06- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa Hkkjr la?k cuke
jkeleq> o vU; 1999 ¼9½ ,l-lh-lh- 429] Union of India Vs Rattan Mallik
@ Habul 2009 ¼2½ ,l-lh-lh- 624] Hkkjr la?k cuke fu;ktqnhu] ,l- ds- ,oa vU;
2018 ¼13½ ,l-lh-lh- 738 o State of Kerala Vs Rajesh ¼2020½ 12 ,l-lh-lh-
122 esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh O;k[;k dh xbZ gS vkSj ;g Li”V fd;k x;k gS
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
fd /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½¼ii½ esa tks viokn fn, x, gSa] mlds fy, fjtuscy xzkm.M gksuk
vko’;d gSA mlh voLFkk esa tekur ij fjgk fd;k tk ldrk gS vU;Fkk tekur ij
fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
07- mDr U;kf;d n`”Vkrksa ds vykok ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu
ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Narcotics Control Bureau Versus
Mohit Aggarwal, AIR 2022 S.C. 3444 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds rhu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds fu.kZ; Collector of
Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodir (2004) 3 SCC 549 o
ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds State of Kerala Vs Rajesh (2020)12 SCC
122 ij fopkj djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 11] 14] 15 o 18 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k
x;k gS %&
“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
Criminal Procedure Code, 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
subsection (1) of Section 37 is that (i) the Public
Prosecutor ought to be given an opportunity to
oppose the application moved by an accused
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.
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
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
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.
15. We may clarify that at the stage of
examining an application for bail in the context
of the Section 37 of the Act, the Court is not
required to record a finding that the accused
person is not guilty. The Court is also not
expected to weigh the evidence for arriving at a
finding as to whether the accused has
committed an offence under the NDPS Act or
not. The entire exercise that the Court is
expected to undertake at this stage is for the
limited purpose of releasing him on bail. Thus,
the focus is on the availability of reasonable
grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offences that he has been charged
with and he is unlikely to commit an offence
under the Act while on bail.
18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail
available under Section 37 of the Act, have not
been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At
this stage, it is not safe to conclude that the
respondent has successfully demonstrated that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that he
is not guilty of the offence alleged against him,
for him to have been admitted to bail. “The
length of the period of his custody or the
fact that the charge-sheet has been filed
and the trial has commenced are by
themselves not considerations that can be
treated as persuasive grounds for granting
relief to the respondent under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.”
08- blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Union of India Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu, Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023
Decided on March 28, 2023 [2023] 2 Supreme 755 esa Hkh /kkjk
37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ij fopkj djrs vihy Lohdkj dh xbZ vkSj iSjk
la[;k 14] 16 o 17 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k %&
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
“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
offence involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail unless the twin conditions laid
down therein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public
prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such an offence
and that he is not likely to commit any such
offence while on bail.
16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit
that no person accused of an offence involving
trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is
liable to be released on bail unless the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such an offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
17. The quantity of “ganja” recovered is
admittedly of commercial quantity. The High
Court has not recorded any finding that the
respondent-accused is not prima facie guilty of
the offence alleged and that he is not likely to
commit the same offence when enlarged on bail
rather his antecedents are indicative that he is a
regular offender. In the absence of recording of
such satisfaction by the court, we are of the
opinion that the High Court manifestly erred in
enlarging the respondent-accused on bail.”
09- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk vius U;kf;d n`”Vkar STATE By
The Inspector Of Police Vs. B. Ramu Criminal Appeal No. 801 OF
2024 Date of Judgment February 12, 2024. [2024] 0 Supreme
(SC) 130 ds ekeys esa Hkh /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh /kkjk ij fopkj djrs gq,
enzkl mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB }kjk ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa varxZr /kkjk
438 lhvkj-ih-lh- vfxze tekur ij fjgk djus ds vkns’k ds fo:) vihy Lohdkj
djrs gq, iSjk la[;k 9] 11 o 12 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS %&
“9. A plain reading of statutory provision makes
it abundantly clear that in the event, the Public
Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail either
regular or anticipatory, as the case may be, the
Court would have to record a satisfaction that
there are grounds for believing that the accused
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity
of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow
in granting even regular bail to the accused what
to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the
accused is alleged to be having criminal
antecedents.
12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case
involving recovery of commercial quantity of
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the
Court would have to mandatorily record the
satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.”
10- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI
& Anr AIR 2022 SC 3386 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds iwoZ ds U;kf;d
n`”Vkar Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 o Supreme
Court Legal Aid Committee Vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 731 ds
vk/kkj ij fofHkUu dSVsxjht ds vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh- ds
izko/kkuksa ij fopkj fd;k x;k vkSj dSVsxjh ^lh* Lis’ky ,DV tSls NDPS (S.37),
PMLA (S.45), UAPA (S.43D(5), Companies Act, 212(6), vkfn ekeyksa
ds laca/k esa iSjk la[;k 64 esa fuEukuqlkj foospu fd;k x;k gS %&
“64. Now we shall come to category (C). We do
not wish to deal with individual enactments as
each special Act has got an objective behind it,
followed by the rigor imposed. The general
principle governing delay would apply to these
categories also. To make it clear, the provision
contained in Section 436A of the Code would
apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of
any specific provision. For example, the rigor as
provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
would not come in the way in such a case as we
are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do
feel that more the rigor, the quicker the
adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types
of cases number of witnesses would be very less
and there may not be any justification for
prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to
comply with the directions of this Court to
expedite the process and also a stricter
compliance of Section 309 of the Code.”
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
11- mDr U;kf;d n`”Vkar ds i’pkr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk
Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal
Appeal No. 943 of 2023 Date of Judgment 28-03-2023 (AIR 2023
(SC) 1648) ds ekeys esa vfHk;qDr tks fd 23 o”kZ dh vk;q dk fxjQ~rkjh ds le;
Fkk] vkSj fnukad 28-09-2015 dks 4 eqfYteksa] ftlesa ls ,d furs’k ,dk Hkh Fkk] ls
xkatk dh cjkenxh gqbZ Fkh vkSj ;kph dks furs’k ,dk ds c;ku ds vk/kkj ij
fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k Fkk] bl vk/kkj ij 7 o”kZ 4 ekg dh U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dh vof/k
gksus vkSj 30 xokgksa ds c;ku gksus o 34 xokgksa ds c;ku gksuk ‘ks”k ekuk x;k vkSj
lrsUnz dqekj vafry okys ekeys ij fopkj djrs gq, /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh- ds
izko/kku ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds ekeys esa ykxw gksuk ekurs gq, tekur ij fjgk fd;k
x;kA
12- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkar Union of India Vs.
Vigin K. Varghese 2025 INSC 1316 ds ekeys esa ekuuh; cksEcs mPp
U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 22-01-2025 vkSj 12-03-2025 dks fujLr fd;k x;k vkSj
bl ekeys esa cksEcs mPp U;k;ky; }kjk /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- o yach U;kf;d vof/k
vDVwcj 2022 ls vfHk;qDr dh fxjQ~rkjh fd, gksus ds vk/kkj ij tekur dk
izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj fd;k x;k Fkk] ml ekeys esa okf.kfT;d ek=k esa dksfdu dh
cjkenxh gksus ls /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku ij fopkj djrs gq, vkns’k
ikfjr djus ds funsZ’k fn, x,A
13- iwoZ esa mfYyf[kr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkarksa ds
ifjizs{; esa /kkjk 37 ¼1½¼ch½ ds rgr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk tekur dk fojks/k
djus dh lwjr esa tekur ds izkFkZuk&i= ij fopkj djrs gq, U;k;ky; vkjksih O;fDr
dks rHkh tekur ns ldrk gS tc og larq”V gks fd ;g fo’okl djus ds fy, mfpr
vk/kkj gSa fd og bl rjg ds vijk/k dk nks”kh ugha gS vkSj tekur ij jgrs gq,]
mlds }kjk dksbZ vijk/k djus dh laHkkouk ugha gSA ;s nksuksa ‘krsZa iwjh ugha gksus ij
tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl vk/kkj ij fd vfHk;qDr ds fo:)
pkyku is’k gks pqdk gS ;k vfHk;qDr dkQh le; ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gS]
vfHk;qDr tekur dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA ijarq ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds lrsUnz dqekj vafry okys ekeys ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 436, lhvkj-ih-lh-
ds izko/kku izdj.k esa ykxw gksus dh voLFkk esa tekur ij fjgk fd;s tkus ij fopkj
fd;k tk ldrk gSA /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV esa gh ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd
/kkjk 19] ;k /kkjk 24 ;k /kkjk 27, ds lacaf/kr vijk/k o ,sls ekeys] ftlesa
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
okf.kfT;d ek=k ds vkfVZdy cjken gq, gSa] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 37 ¼1½ ¼ch½ ,u-Mh-
ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku ykxw gksaxsA
14- fo}ku vf/koDRkk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ekuuh; mPpre
U;k;ky; ds iwoZ esa of.kZr U;kf;d n`”Vkar okftn vyh mQZ Vhadw ds ekeys esa
izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr nks o”kZ 10 ekg ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa Fkk vkSj ,Q-,l-,y- esa 21 fnu
i’pkr lSEiy Hkstk x;k vkSj bl ekeys esa egRoiw.kZ eSVsfj;y xokg ijhf{kr gks pqds
FksA bu lHkh rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq, tekur dk ykHk fn;k x;k Fkk vkSj fo}ku
vf/koDrk izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr iwoZ esa of.kZr jkeckcw okys ekeys esa ,d
o”kZ 10 ekg U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus vkSj 21 vfHk;kstd lk{kh esa ls dsoy 1 lk{kh
ijhf{kr gksus vkSj lSEiy nsjh ls ,Q-,l-,y- Hkstus bR;kfn ij fopkj djrs gq,
tekur dk ykHk fn;k x;k FkkA
15- ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`”Vkar NARCOTICS
CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF 2024 INSC 1045 ij fopkj fd;k x;k] bl
U;kf;d n`”Vkar ds iSjk la[;k 36 o 39 esa fuEukuqlkj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gS%&
“36. At this stage, we must deal with the recent
judgments in case of Simarnjit vs. State of Punjab,
(Criminal Appeal No.1443/2023), in case of Yusuf @
Asif vs. State (2023 SCC Online SC 1328), and in case
of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of
Telangana ((2024) 5 SCC 393) in which the convictions
have been set aside by this Court on finding non-
compliance of Section 52A and relying upon the
observations made in case of Mohanlal. Apart from the
fact that the said cases have been decided on the facts
of each case, none of the judgments has proposed to
lay down any law either with regard to Section 52A or
on the issue of admissibility of any other evidence
collected during the course of trial under the NDPS Act.
Therefore, we have considered the legislative history of
Section 52A and other Statutory Standing Orders as
also the judicial pronouncements, which clearly lead to
an inevitable conclusion that delayed compliance or
non- compliance of Section 52A neither vitiates the trial
affecting conviction nor can be a sole ground to seek
bail. In our opinion, the decisions of Constitution
Benches in case of Pooran Mal and Baldev Singh must
take precedence over any observations made in the
judgments made by the benches of lesser strength,
which are made without considering the scheme,
purport and object of the Act and also without
considering the binding precedents.
39. The upshot of the above discussion may be
summarized as under:
(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to
be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme,(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]object and purpose of the Act; as also the
impact on the society as a whole. It has to be
interpreted literally and not liberally, which may
ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and
Preamble of the Act.
(ii) While considering the application for bail,
the Court must bear in mind the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are
mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as
mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is
known for granting bail to the accused involved
in the offences under the NDPS Act.
(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A
laying down the procedure for disposal of seized
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,
was to ensure the early disposal of the seized
contraband drugs and substances. It was
inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to
implement and to give effect to the
International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances.
(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down
the procedure as contemplated in sub-section
(1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed
compliance thereof would be merely a
procedural irregularity which would neither
entitle the accused to be released on bail nor
would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found
to have been committed in conducting the
search and seizure during the course of
investigation or thereafter, would by itself not
make the entire evidence collected during the
course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court
would have to consider all the circumstances
and find out whether any serious prejudice has
been caused to the accused.
(vi) Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section
52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor
would entitle the accused to be released on bail.
The Court will have to consider other
circumstances and the other primary evidence
collected during the course of investigation, as
also the statutory presumption permissible
under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”
16- iwoZ esa of.kZr fof/kd fLFkfr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, gLrxr ekeys ij
fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dk ekeyk fnlEcj 2023 dk gS ijarq bl
ekeys esa tks cjkenxh crkbZ xbZ gS] og vQhe ds nw/k dqy 4 fdyks 760 xzke dh
FkSfy;ksa lfgr dh crkbZ xbZ gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k dk ekeyk gSA ftlesa /kkjk
37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Vs. KASHIF ¼iwoksZDr½ okys ekeys ds iwoZ esa
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
of.kZr iSjk la[;k 39(v) ds eqrkfcd dksbZ procedural irregularity or illegality
search o seizure ds nkSjku ;k mlds i’pkr gksus ek= ls ,df=r dh xbZ lk{;
inadmissible ugha gksrhA U;k;ky; dks leLr circumstances ij fopkj dj gh
vfHk;qDr dks serious prejudice gqvk vFkok ugha] bl ij fopkj djuk pkfg,A bl
LVst ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk vkSj bl LVst ij
/kkjk 52, dh ;k /kkjk 42 dh ikyuk gqbZ vFkok ugha] bldk foospu Hkh fd;k tkuk
fof/klEer ugha gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij fd /kkjk 52,] 42 dh ikyuk ugha dh] bl
LVst ij tekur ds fy, fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks serious
prejudice gqvk vFkok ugha] ;g fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk foospu djus ds
mijkar gh fu”d”kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gSA ,slh voLFkk esa bl LVst ij tks rdZ
izLrqr fd, x, gSa fd bl ekeys esa /kkjk 52, o /kkjk 42 dh ikyuk ugha dh] ftl
ij foospu dj bl LVst ij izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk
U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA
17- tgka rd bl ekeys esa vHkh rd nks gh xokg dh lk{; gksus dk iz’u
gSA bl laca/k esa vkns’k fjtoZ fd, tkus ds i’pkr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls fjiksVZ ryc
dh xbZA ftl ij ;g Li”V gqvk fd cgl pktZ lquh tkdj fnukad 03-09-2024 dks
pktZ fojfpr dj lquk, o le>k, x,A fnukad 15-02-2025 dks xokg lhrkjke ih-
MCY;w01 ds c;ku gq, o fnukad 01-03-2025 dks xokg gfjnkl ds c;ku crkSj ih-
MCY;w 02 gq, o rRi’pkr vfHk;kstu dh lk{; gsrq i=koyh yafcr FkhA lgvfHk;qDr
deyk’kadj ukxnk }kjk bl U;k;ky; esa S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
1623/2024 is’k dh xbZ FkhA ftldk fu.kZ; fnukad 13-02-2026 dks gqvk gS vkSj
pktZ vkns’k dks fujLr dj iqu% i{kdkjku dks lqudj pktZ vkns’k ikfjr djus ds
funsZ’k fn, x, gSaA izdj.k esa fnukad 28-04-2025 dks iqu% cgl pktZ gsrq is’kh fu;r
gSA ,slh voLFkk esa bl ekeys esa lgvfHk;qDr }kjk dh xbZ fuxjkuh vkns’k ds dkj.k
iqu% cgl pktZ lquh tkdj vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkuk gSA
18- bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr <kbZ o”kZ ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gksus ds
vk/kkj ij tekur dk izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj dj tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkuk
fof/klEer ugha gSA iwoZ esa of.kZr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds rhu ekuuh;
U;k;kf/kifrx.k dh ihB ds ,u-lh-ch- cuke eksfgr vxzoky okys ekeys ds iSjk la[;k
18 esa of.kZrkuqlkj ^^The length of the period of his custody** ds vk/kkj ij
/kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV ds eqrkfcd tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tk ldrkA bl
ekeys esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh U;kf;d vfHkj{kk vof/k Hkh 3 o”kZ ls de dh gS rFkk
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18340] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-8710/2025]
/kkjk 436¼,½ lhvkj-ih-lh- ¼479 ch-,u-,l-,l-½ ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr ugha fd;k
x;k gSA
19- bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ls gh ekSds ls cjkenxh dqy 4-760 xzke
vQhe ds nw/k dh gksuk crk;k x;k gSA vr% bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa
izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr ds ekeys esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- ,DV dh viokfnr ifjfLFkfr;ka
fo|eku ugha gksus ls izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g f}rh; tekur
izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
20- vr% izkFkhZ&vfHk;qDr eUukyky dh vksj ls izLrqr f}rh; tekur dk
vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 483 ch-,u-,l-,l- ¼439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk½ [kkfjt fd;k
tkrk gSA
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
45-mayank/-
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 09:08:42 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 08:34:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)