[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manish vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13909) on 24 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13909]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 2077/2026
Manish S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Matwalo Ki
Dhani Bala, Tehsil Bilara,police Station Bilara,district
Jodhpur,rajasthan Lodged In Central Jail,jodhpur
----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 KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
24/03/2026
This fourth application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with F.I.R. No.112/2023 registered at Police Station Banar, District
Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 24.07.2022, during a surprise inspection
conducted by the Drug Control Officer, Jodhpur at Vishnu Medical
Agency, a medicine shop owned by the accused petitioner -
Manish, tablets Clovedol-100SR containing NDPS Act component
Tramadol were found kept. The batch number printed on each
strip was found removed by the petitioner with nail paint remover.
Instead of 192x50x10 tablets in the stock. The Drug Control
Officer, Jodhpur froze the said stock of tablets and specifically
asked the petitioner not to destroy or sell these tablets. However,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:31:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13909] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2077/2026]
on 16.08.2022, upon re-inspection of the petitioner's medicine
shop, only 130x10 tablets of the frozen stock were found on the
spot and the rest were allegedly sold by the petitioner without
issuing any sales bill, disregarding the instructions of the Drug
Control Officer, Jodhpur. The petitioner was arrested during the
course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. To
substantiate this contention, learned counsel vehemently
submitted that the FIR in the matter has been lodged after an
inordinate delay of 08 months from the date of re-inspection of
the petitioner's shop without any plausible reason for the same.
Learned counsel further submitted that entire inspection of the
petitioner's medicine is illegal as no order to search the
petitioner's shop is available on record and in absence of the
same, the Drug Control Officer was acting out of jurisdiction in
conducting the search of the petitioner's shop.
It was further submitted that no concrete material is
available on record to implicate the present petitioner in
commission of the alleged crime. The investigation, search and
seizure proceedings suffers from material procedural lapses.
Similarly, it was argued that the contents of FIR do not disclose
the quantity of the contraband recovered from the possession of
the present petitioner.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 24.06.2024; he has no criminal
antecedents; investigation in the matter has already been
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:31:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13909] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2077/2026]
concluded; challan has already been filed before the competent
criminal court and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long
time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. He submitted that minor procedural
lapses in the course of investigation does not entitle the petitioner
to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute
the fact that weight of the contraband recovered from the
petitioner's shop has not been mentioned in the FIR coupled with
the fact that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of
08 months from the date of re-inspection. He was also not in a
position to refute the fact that the petitioner had produced certain
bills indicating that the recovered psychotropic substance was
legally purchased by him from a valid vendor. Learned Public
Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner
involving himself in a case of similar nature or fleeing away from
justice in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the twin condition
expressed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are duly satisfied in
the present case; and without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the fourth bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Manish
S/o Pokar Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.112/2023
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:31:28 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13909] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2077/2026]
registered at Police Station Banar, District Jodhpur, shall be
released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
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
296-divya/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 05:31:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
