Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Rajkumar S/O Shri Shri Ramchandra vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:16615]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1998/2026
1. Abhiraj Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village Karamchandpur, Police Station
Mohammadabad, Gajipur, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).
2. Sampat Singh Singh S/o Sharwan Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Plot No. 26E, Hari Nikunj, Jaisinghpura, Police
Station Bhankrota, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central
Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2903/2026
Ankush Agrawal S/o Satyendra Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o House No. 45, Abhinandan Enclave, Jaisinghpura,
Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur. (Presently Confined In Jail At
Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4974/2026
Rajkumar S/o Shri Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Village Kaman, P.s Hamirwas, Rajgarh, Churu At Present Nursing
Officer-Ii, (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Gunjan Sharma in CRLMB
No.1998/2026
Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh
Gupta in CRLMB No.2903/2026
Mr. Rajesh Maharishi in CRLMB
No.4974/2026
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (2 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]
10/04/2026
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
1998/2026:-
1. Dr. Gunjan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the
accused-petitioner -Abhiraj Singh & Anr. in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.1998/2026 at the very outset seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the present bail application.
2. Accordingly, the bail application No.1998/2026 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2903/2026
& 4974/2026:-
3. Mr. Rahul Sharma for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned
counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner -Ankush Agrawal in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2903/2026 submits that the
recovery of the alleged contraband has been made from the house
of the co-accused, Sampat Singh and he has nothing to do with
the alleged contraband recovered. He also submits that the Police
has failed to record the statement of independent witness and
there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act
while making search and seizure. There is no documentary
evidence like bills of purchase which could connect the accused-
petitioner with the alleged contraband. He also submits that the
accused-petitioner has been arrested on 25.09.2025 and the
Police after completion of investigation has already submitted
charge-sheet in the matter and the trial of the case will take
considerable time.
4. Mr. Rajesh Maharishi, learned counsel appearing for the
accused-petitioner -Rajkumar in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (3 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]
Application No.4974/2026 submits that the accused-petitioner is
the Nursing Officer and is posted at Jail and he has nothing to do
with the recovery of the alleged contraband and also not
connected with any kind of supply or distribution of the
contraband. He also submits that there is non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of Section 103 of BNSS and Sections 50 and
42 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that the accused-petitioner is
in custody since 25.09.2025.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail
applications and submits that a huge quantity of the contraband
i.e. various medicines which contains the narcotic drugs and its
weight is 8822.4 gram has been recovered from the possession of
one Abhiraj Singh, Sampat Singh and Ankush Agrawal during their
search made by the Police after receiving a secret information.
Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the contraband
recovered is much more than commercial quantity. Therefore, the
accused-petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail by the
Court.
6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the
accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also
perused the challan papers.
7. As per the facts on record, an FIR No.277/2025 has
been registered at Police Station Bhankrota, District Jaipur (West)
for offence punishable under Section 8/22 NDPS Act. As per the
contents of FIR, on a secret information received by the Police, the
Police made search of a house and found various tablets, capsules
and three persons, namely, Abhiraj Singh, Sampat Singh and
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (4 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]
Ankush Agrawal were there in the house. They are not having the
legal valid document for retaining those tablets and capsules. On
weighing the tablets and capsules, it was found to be 8822.4 gram
and therefore, the said contraband is much more than commercial
quantity. During the course of investigation, it has also come out
that the accused -Abhiraj Singh, Sampat Singh and Ankush
Agrawal have purchased the said medicines containing narcotic
drugs from one Rahul Agrawal by contacting him on his telephone
number 70607-69423. During investigation, the accused -Abhiraj
Singh, Sampat Singh and Ankush Agrawal deposed that the
accused -Sampat Singh used to supply the drugs to one Gograj
who is detained in jail on a demand from him by a call and
message through mobile number 96805-44580 and on the
demand made by Gograj who is confined in jail, they used to send
the medicines/drugs through Nursing Officer-Rajkumar. There are
mobile chats, call details and transaction details between the
accused-petitioner -Rajkumar and Ankush Agrawal. The cell phone
of accused-petitioner -Rajkumar has also been seized by the
Police. On perusal of the charge-sheet and the evidence collected
during investigation, the Court prima-facie finds substantial
evidence as regards involvement and connectivity of the accused-
petitioners with the alleged offence.
8. One of the submissions made by counsel for the
accused-petitioners is non-compliance of Section 103 of BNSS and
Sections 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act which relates to alleged
discrepancies, legality of recovery, authenticity of memos and
alleged false implication.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (5 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]
9. 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
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.
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (6 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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
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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (7 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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.
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.”
10. In the present case, the present criminal case involves
the alleged contraband weighing 8822.4 gram medicines which
contains the narcotic drugs. The contraband is much more than
the commercial quantity and the accused-petitioners have not
been able to convince this Court as regards satisfaction required
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
11. 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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (8 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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
“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:
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (9 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]“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]
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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (10 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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
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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (11 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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
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(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (12 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]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.”
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.”
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:16615] (13 of 13) [CRLMB-1998/2026]
12. Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence collected during
investigation, this Court at this stage is not inclined to enlarge the
accused-petitioners, namely, Ankush Agrawal and Rajkumar on
bail.
13. Hence, these bail applications bearing S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Applications No.2903/2026 and 4974/2026 are
dismissed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Ashish Kumar /16-18
(Uploaded on 22/04/2026 at 10:48:54 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 11:21:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
