Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Raja Ram vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:48545) on 12 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:48545]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 13690/2025

Raja Ram S/o Rameshwardas Vaishnav, Aged About 36 Years, R/
o Vittalpura, Police Station Bigod, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Through Special Public Prosecutor, Central
Narcotics Bureau, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan.)
----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Kumar Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S.Nahar, Spl. PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/11/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance

of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 03/2023
2. Concerned Police Station CBN Chittorgarh
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 8/18 of the
NDPS Act
5. Offences added, if any --

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (2 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based

on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application and submits that the present case is not fit for

enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

5. Co-accused Rajkumar has already been enlarged on bail by

this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 in S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous II Bail Application No.6120/2025. For ready

reference, the relevant portion of the said bail application is

reproduced hereinunder:-

2. The brief factual matrix of the case reveals that on
08.07.2023, pursuant to reliable and actionable intelligence
regarding the illicit possession and trafficking of opium, Shri
T.M. Kathed, Superintendent (Preventive), Central Bureau
of Narcotics (CBN), Chittorgarh, constituted a specialized
preventive squad. This contingent, led by Sub-Inspector
Shakeel Ahmad Khan, along with other CBN officials and
independent witnesses, strategically positioned themselves
at the Bhilwara-Kota highway near Sawai Pur-Kudi at
approximately 12:30 PM with the objective of intercepting
the suspected contraband.
2.1. The team duly informed the independent witnesses
about the impending operation, adhering to the protocol
delineated in CBN Form-1, and secured their verbal consent
prior to initiating the search. At approximately 1:15 PM, a
suspicious silver Hyundai Creta bearing registration number
RJ-06-CE-5748, approaching from the Bigod direction, was
intercepted. The vehicle was driven by the accused,

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (3 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

Rajkumar, with co-accused Rajaram occupying the
passenger seat.
2.2. Following a lawful and systematic search conducted in
the presence of witnesses, three plastic sacks containing a
cumulative quantity of five kilograms of contraband opium,
inclusive of packaging materials, were seized. Consequent
to the recovery, a formal prosecution complaint has been
registered against the principal accused, Rajkumar, under
Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS) Act. The petitioner's initial bail
application, registered as SBCRLMB No.14278/2024, was
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated
19.11.2024. The instant bail application has therefore been
filed.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner
that no case for the alleged offences is made out against
him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no
factors at play in the case at hand that may work against
grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been
made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the
bail application and submits that the present case is not fit
for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
parties and have perused the material available on record.
6. The present matter involves a search and seizure
operation undertaken by the Central Bureau of Narcotics,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, on the Bhilwara-Kota
Highway near Sawai Pur-Kudi at around 12:30 PM.
According to the prosecution, the CBN team, acting on
confidential intelligence on 08.07.2023, recovered
approximately five kilograms of opium in adherence to
established investigative procedures. The petitioner was
subsequently apprehended on charges of unlawful
possession of narcotics.

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (4 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

6.1. However, the defense has vigorously contested the
prosecution's case, primarily raising the issue of
jurisdictional competence. It is argued that the offence
allegedly occurred on the Bhilwara-Kota Highway, yet the
seizure report was registered in District Chittorgarh, with
the charge-sheet filed before the Special Judge, NDPS Act
Cases, Chittorgarh a forum lacking territorial jurisdiction
over the incident.
6.2. The defense has also highlighted a procedural
irregularity in the seizure process. Although the Recovery
Memo indicates that the contraband was seized at Bhilwara-
Kota Highway, the narcotics were transported to the CBN
office in District Chittorgarh, where the formal seizure
procedure was purportedly completed. Such relocation of
contraband before formal seizure is impermissible under the
law and compromises the integrity of the seizure process.
6.3. A perusal of the record reveals that the CBN team from
District Chittorgarh conducted the operation approximately
72 kilometers from its headquarters. This geographical
disconnect raises critical questions about jurisdictional
propriety and procedural sanctity.
7. Such procedural lapses have been elaborately
discussed by this Court in the case of Dharmendra Singh
v. Union Of India, Through CBN (S.B. Criminal Misc.
Third Bail Application No. 13299/2024) decided on
21.10.2024. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs
of the judgment are reproduced herein below:-
"6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central
Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State Rajasthan
proceeded to make search and seizure of an offence
committed at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District
Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a
secret information on 06.01.2024, a joint preventive team
from the CBN proceeded to the place of the petitioner and
conducted a search of his house, where around 11
quintals of poppy husk came to be recovered and seized

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (5 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

as per the usual course of investigation, as it is claimed
by the officers. The petitioner came to be arrested for
having in possession of poppy husk in commercial
quantity.
8. The glaring defect of the case as pointed out by the
defence is that the offence was committed within the
State of M.P. at Mandsore but the seizure was reported in
the State of Rajasthan at District Chittorgarh and charge-
sheet has also been submitted in the Court of Special
Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, which has no
jurisdiction to try or inquire the case as it falls outside its
territorial jurisdiction.
9. A further plea has also been raised that as per the
Recovery Memo, though the contraband was taken from
the house of the petitioner situated in the State of M.P.,
but the same was taken to the Office of CBN, District
Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, where the entire
process of seizure was affected and which is not
permissible in the law.
10. In this view of the matter, this Court has observed
that a bare look on the papers revealing that the team of
CBN, District Chittorgarh went to make a search at the
petitioner's house, which is around 80-90 kms away from
Chittorgarh and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of
District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Of
course, the respondent is a Central Agency and it has an
authority to make search and seizure at any place within
its authorized areas but at the same time, this legal plea
cannot be ignored that the alleged offence was committed
somewhere in the State of M.P. and ordinarily, the place
of inquiry and trial, as per Section 177 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, would be the place where the crime
was committed and search was affected. It is an admitted
fact situation that the place of recovery is situated in the
District Mandsore of State of M.P. and ordinary place of
trial of such case would be the Special Judge functioning
at District Mandsore in the State of M.P.
11. For ready reference, Section 177 of Cr.P.C. is
reproduced herein under:-

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (6 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

"177.Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.
Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by
a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

11.1 A bare perusal of the above, making it abundantly
clear that an inquiry or trial in relation to an offence shall
only be conducted by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction the offence was committed. Indisputably, the
offence was committed somewhere in the State of M.P.
and the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh will
have no jurisdiction to try the accused. There is no bar if
the trial of the case be sent to a Court of competent
jurisdiction but in any case, the Special Judge, NDPS Act
Cases, Chittorgarh has no jurisdiction to make a further
order of remand or to try the case and has no authority to
take cognizance of the offence and to proceed further in
the matter.
11.2 The same view has been taken in the case of
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR
2014 (4) SC 3519 and in Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.
v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. reported in
AIR 2004 SC 4286, wherein it has been observed that in
criminal cases, Section 177 of CrPC is in reference to the
local jurisdiction where the offence is committed and
territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the Court within
whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed.
12. Another glaring aspect of the case is that the alleged
poppy husk was found in petitioner's house situated at
Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in
the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, no Seizure Memo
was prepared at the place from where it was recovered;
rather, weird process had been adopted by taking the
contraband to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in
the State of Rajasthan, which is around 80-90 kms far
away from the place of recovery. The passing of remand
order, judicial custody remand and taking cognizance of
the offence without having authority and outside the
territorial jurisdiction by the Special Judge, NDPS Act

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (7 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

Cases, Chittorgarh, is illegal. There is high probability that
the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these
facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant
the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
13. The role of the magistrate under section 157 CrPC is
also limited to the point that an officer in-charge of a
police station shall forthwith send a report to such
magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance in the
matter if he has reason to suspect that a cognizable
offence (which he is empowered to investigate under
Section 156) has been committed. This provision has
been made just with a view to ensure equitableness so
that the police or any other investigating agency may not
make any undue interference and the exact time of FIR as
well as the wordings used in respect of nature of
accusation, name of accused, place of incident etc.
remains unchanged. It leaves no crevice open for
adulteration to creep in and here, the Magistrate has
nothing to do as such. If the place of incident itself is
outside the jurisdiction, then how it can be taken
cognizance of and how equitableness can be maintained.
For ready reference Section 157 is being reproduced as
under: -
"157. Procedure of investigation.
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an
officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to
suspect the commission of an offence which he is
empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall
forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a
police report and shall proceed in person, or shall
depute one of his subordinate officers not being below
such rank as the State Government may, by general or
special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the
spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the
case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the
discovery and arrest of the offender :
Provided that -

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (8 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

(a)when information as to the commission of any such
offence is given against any person by name and the
case is not of a serious nature, the officer-in-charge of a
police station need not proceed in person or depute a
subordinate officer to make an investigation on the
spot;
(b) if it appears to the officer-in-charge of a police
station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on
an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
[Provided further that in relation to an offence of rape,
the recording of statement of the victim shall be
conducted at the residence of the victim or in the place
of her choice and as far as practicable by a woman
police officer in the presence of her parents or guardian
or near relatives or social worker of the locality.]
[Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 11.]
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and
(b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer-in-
charge of the police station shall state in his report his
reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of
that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause
(b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith
notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may
be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he
will not investigate the case or cause it to be
investigated."
14. This Court is of the firm view that unless availability of
special circumstances, the things are required to be
seized at the same place where from it is recovered
because taking away the contraband from a place and
then affecting procedure of seizure at a suitable place of
the Officer makes the recovery doubtful and so also the
same loses its sanctity.
15. Dealing with the aforesaid aspect, this Court has
passed an order dated 08.05.2024 in SBCRLMB
No.5457/2024 (Major Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) while
observing as under :-

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/11/2025 at 09:05:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (9 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

"13. The admission made by the above witnesses has
put a serious dent on the story of the prosecution to
the effect that a vehicle was intercepted by the police
at a particular place and time and certain quantity of
contraband got recovered from it. In order to sanctify
the search and seizure of contraband, it was expected
from the Seizure Officer to prepare the memos at the
crime place that too in the presence of the independent
witnesses if available nearby the place. Present is a
case where several persons were available at or nearby
the crime place but not a single independent witness
has corroborated the factum of recovery memo. Taking
of the vehicle and the accused from the crime scene to
the police station and then preparation of memos within
the close precinct of the police station, as per their
convenience has lost the sanctity of the search and
seizure. Law requires that if certain thing is recovered
at a particular place on the given time then the memos
should be prepared at the same place in the presence
of witnesses and accused. Although, it is a prima face
and tentative opinion of this Court only for the purpose
of justifiable disposal of the bail application.
14. Discussing the above circumstance, this Court has
taken a view in SBCRLMB No.11544/2023 titled as
Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Union of India decided on
30.10.2023. The relevant part is reproduced as under:
-

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The circumstances created by the Police team in this matter brings the recovery into doubt. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the Panchnama Japti. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (10 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the shop and warehouse of the petitioner beforehand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared after a significant period of time had passed at another place (CBN, Neemach) making it seem as if seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, watering down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo.

15. The credibility of the seizure memo looses significance if the thing is recovered at a distant place and it is taken by the police from the crime scene to the police station and then memos got prepared in the police station. If it is allowed then why not in every case the things may be taken from the crime scene and wherefter, the entire proceeding be undertaken in the premises of police station and then why not in every case the accused can be detained from any place and whereafter his/her/their memo of arrest be prepared in the police station. This Court is of the view that if anything or any incriminating material is collected or recovered from a particular place and at a particular time then the seizure memo/recovery memo should have been prepared at the same place and that too in the presence of the witnesses of the same locality. A slight departure or deviation can be permitted in case when no other person is available to verify the fact of recovery at the crime scene then the members of the

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (11 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

police party can be made witness of the fact of recovery. In certain circumstances, when there is heavy rain or there is heavy traffic on the highway or other like situation, in that cases also, the seizure memo can be prepared at a nearby place so that the proceedings can be undertaken calmly or safely. However, it is not permissible for a police officer to pick the contraband from a particular place then carry with him to the police station which is situated at a far place and whereafter prepare the seizure memo in the police station premises. The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. In that situation, the purity, originality, genuineness and virtuousness would be lost and at the same time, there would be serious aspersions regarding fairness and genuineness of factum of seizure."

In light of the observations articulated in the precedent cited above, and considering that the accused-petitioner has been in custody for nearly two years without any adverse criminal antecedents, this Court is inclined to hold a prima facie view that the prosecution case suffers from manifest infirmities. Furthermore, given the likelihood of protracted litigation, the balance of convenience favors the grant of bail. It is emphasized that these observations are tentative and limited to the scope of bail adjudication.

6. Thus, on the ground of parity, to maintain judicial discipline

and consistency in the orders of the Court, the petitioner too

deserves to be enlarged on bail. There is high probability that

the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these

facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the

benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

(Uploaded on 12/11/2025 at 04:25:50 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48545] (12 of 12) [CRLMB-13690/2025]

7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner

as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided

he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with