[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Alias Madiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13416) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13416]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 12206/2025
Madan Alias Madiya S/o Rameshwarlal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Dhani Dungarsingh Pura P.s Ratannagar District Churu Raj. (At
Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangilal Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
19/03/2026
1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.109/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District
Churu for the offences under Sections 8/15 and 29 of the NDPS
Act.
2. The second application for bail filed by the petitioner being
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7655/2024 was dismissed
as not pressed vide order dated 16.05.2025 while granting liberty
to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after statements of
the investigating officer are recorded before the competent
criminal court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 31.08.2021 at around 12:15 A.M., during routine
nakabandi, the driver of the fortuner vehicle bearing registration
No.RJ31-UA-4555 accelerated the speed upon being signaled to
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 01:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13416] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12206/2025]
stop. Following this vehicle, a white coloured unnumbered Scorpio
vehicle came in which the petitioner was sitting and the rear seat
and an unknown person was driving the vehiche. Upon seeing the
police personnel, the said vehicle turned towards Dabla and after
chasing it, petitioner and accused person left the vehicle behind
and fled the place of incident. After searching the offending
vehicle, the contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 336
kilograms was recovered from 24 plastic sacks. The petitioner was
arrested during the course of investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the statements of the investigating
officer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
investigating officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted to the
fact that he has not adhered to the provisions of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act, thus resulting in non-compliance of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no
connection whatsoever with seized the Scorpio vehicle, in fact, the
same has been reported stolen and an FIR No.119/2021 was
registered at Police Station Subash Nagar, District Bhilwara.
Learned counsel further submitted that the contraband has not
been recovered from the conscious possession of the present
petitioner and no direct or cogent material has been brought on
record by the investigating agency which implicate involvement of
the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 25.08.2023; investigation in
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 01:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13416] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12206/2025]
the matter has already been concluded; no recovery is due to be
made from the present petitioner; and the trial of the case will
take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of
bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
7. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application. He submitted that two cases of similar nature area
pending trial against the accused petitioner. He also submitted
contraband greater than commercial quantity has been recovered
in the present case, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It was thus prayed that this
bail application be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the
material available on record.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and after perusing the record as made
available, this Court prima facie finds that the contraband
allegedly recovered in the present case is of commercial quantity,
i.e., 336 kilograms of poppy husk, and therefore, the rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted.
11. In the present case, the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS
Act, as sought to be demonstrated from the cross-examination of
the investigating officer is a question which pertain to appreciation
of evidence and disputed questions of fact at the stage of trial by
the learned court below. At this stage of consideration of bail, this
Court is not required to minutely appreciate evidence when prima
facie involvement of the accused - petitioner is made out. This
Court is conscious of the judgment rendered in the case of Union
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 01:48:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13416] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12206/2025]
of India through Narcotics Bureau, Lucknow vs. Mohd.
Nawaz Khan reported in 2021 (10) SCC 100, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the question with
regard to non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is the one
which should be raised in the course of trial.
12. It is well settled that in cases involving commercial quantity,
the Court is required to record its satisfaction with respect to the
twin conditions envisaged under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In
view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the submission
of the learned Public Prosecutor regarding involvement of the
petitioner in other similar cases, this Court is not satisfied that the
petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
13. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions mandated under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
14. Accordingly, the present third bail application filed under
Section 483 BNSS deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
15. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
258-Himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 01:48:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
