[2025:RJ-JP:31761] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6735/2025 Rajendra @ Vinod S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Khariya Baad, Kajroli, Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur At Present Proprietor Ridhi Siddhi Medical And Provisional Store Kajroli. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Bareth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Suhail Khan, (IInd IO)- SHO P.S. Jobner, Mr. Suresh Singh (SI) (1st IO)- Traffic, Mr. Ramawtar (SI) PS Dudu, (Seizure Officer), Mr. Chandrashekhar, SI/SHO, P.S. Govindgarh, Mr. Arun, SI/SHO, P.S. Amarsar, Jaipur, Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena, Drug Inspector, Mr. Madan Mohan Singhal, Drug Control Officer HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.24/2025 registered at Police Station Govindgarh (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. [2025:RJ-JP:31761] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6735/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the concerned Investigating Officer did not investigate the matter properly, the drug control officer Mr. Madan Mohan Singhal was with the Seizure party and he validated that the petitioner was having a valid license upto November, 2026. It is also contended that the said tramadol, containing 480 capsules were purchased from M/s Shree Shyam distributor and 228 tramadol injections were purchased from M/s Jai Ganpati distributor. It is also contended that drug inspector Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena after the direction of this Court inspected M/s Jai Ganpati distributor and found that the said quantity of injections found at the petitioner’s establishment was validly procured. The concerned drug Inspector also verified the fact that M/s Jai Ganpati distributor also procured the said drugs validly from the Carrying and Forwarding Agency. The lot purchased by the M/s Jai Ganpati distributor was also duly verified from the Carrying and Forwarding Agency. It is also contended that this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025, directed the concerned Officer to verify the bills produced by the petitioner during the pendency of this bail application and the concerned drug Inspector vide his report dated 04.08.2025, investigated and verified the bills from which the petitioner purchased 480 tablets (capsules of tramadol) from M/s Shree Shyam distributor. The drug inspector in his report has clearly stated that the said quantity of tramadol was sold by M/s Shree Shyam distributor to the petitioner’s pharmaceuticals shop. It is also contended that M/s Shree Shyam distributor got the [2025:RJ-JP:31761] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6735/2025] capsules (tramadol) from Carrying and Forwarding Agency, the verification also shows that Carrying and Forwarding Agency has validly supplied the drugs to M/s Shree Shyam distributor. The police have charge-sheeted the petitioner for the offences under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. However, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offences under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act, as the petitioner was having valid license and the petitioner procured the seized tramadol capsules and injections from the valid suppliers. The petitioner has been in custody since long, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. The first Investigating Officer, Mr. Suresh Singh and the Investigating Officer Suhail Khan, who recommended the charge- sheet against the petitioner are present in person, along with the drug control officer Mr. Madan Mohan Singhal and the drug Inspector Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena. The second Investigating Officer who recommended the petitioner’s charge-sheet for the offences under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act, has stated that the petitioner did not produce any bills for purchasing the said quantity recovered from the petitioner’s establishment. The petitioner later on submitted the bills and that too after filing of the charge-sheet. 4. Drug Inspector Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena has stated that he enquired the matter on the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 and found that the petitioner procured the said tramadol capsules from M/s Shree Shyam distributor validly and M/s Shree Shyam distributor got the tramadol from the [2025:RJ-JP:31761] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6735/2025] Carrying and Forwarding Agency. He also stated that similarly, the petitioner purchased tramadol injections from the M/s Jai Ganpati distributor who also procured the said injections from the Carrying and Forwarding Agency. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that at the time of Seizure, the petitioner did not produce any valid bills validating the fact that the petitioner has purchased the said quantity of tramadol injections and capsules from an authorised dealer. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. 7. After perusing the report of the drug Inspector, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has purchased the said tramadol capsules and tramadol injections through valid bills from authorised dealers. Prima-facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner. Though, at the stage of bail, this Court should not express anything upon the merits, however, the circumstances of the case has compelled the Court to give its opinion. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter in a shoddy manner and did not attempt to verify the fact that the said drugs were purchased by the petitioner from authorised dealers. The conduct of the Investigating Officer who recommended the charge-sheet against the petitioner shows his lacklustreness. Due to lacadaical approach of the Investigating Officer, a innocent person has been sent to jail and remained in custody from 12.01.2025, till date, considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the [2025:RJ-JP:31761] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6735/2025] case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. The Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, is directed to initiate a necessary enquiry against erring Investigating Officer/Officers. 9. With this observation, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rajendra @ Vinod S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, in connection with FIR No.24/2025 registered at Police Station Govindgarh (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/9