[2025:RJ-JP:31863] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7290/2025 Mushtaq Ali S/o Sh. Mehardeen, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kallar Baini, Police Station Passiana, District Patiala, Punjab. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Kolana, Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhivadya Sood through V.C. Mr. Amit Malani Mr. Mayur Singla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP 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 accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 421/2016 registered at Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa for the offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioner handed over the vehicle bona-fidely and in good faith to Nimma Singh @ Shambhu Singh S/o Nanak Singh and when the petitioner tried to contact him, he remained untraceable. It is also contended that the petitioner submitted a complaint before the senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala on [2025:RJ-JP:31863] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7290/2025] 19.12.2016, containing the fact that the petitioner's Innova car bearing registration No. PB-11-BU-4323 was handed over to Shambhu Singh, however Shambhu Singh could not be contacted. It is also contended that the petitioner was not aware that his vehicle was used for carrying and transporting the contraband articles. It is also contended that investigating agency did not investigate the matter properly and collected the evidence that the petitioner was driving and using the Innova car in which contraband article containing commercial quantity of poppystraw were being transported. The investigating Agency did not collect the documents and information regarding the accident of the said contraband. It is further argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1480/2011 decided on 25.04.2023, held that if the prosecution failed to establish that the petitioner used the vehicle with the knowledge and consent of the owner conviction cannot be sustained under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. In the matter of Budharam Vs. State of Rajasthan in SB Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1197/2024 decided on 20.02.2024, the co- ordinate Bench of this court observed that the police cannot blindly rely upon Section 35 of the NDPS Act and rope the owner of the vehicle for offence under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2025 and the supplementary charge-sheet has been produced before the concerned court and the trial of the case may take considerable time furthermore there are no criminal antecedents against the [2025:RJ-JP:31863] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7290/2025] petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that the conduct of the petitioner dis-entitles him for liverage, the petitioner remained absent and several attempts were made to arrest him, however the petitioner could not be arrested and after issuance of warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act the court declared him as absconder and standing warrants were issued against petitioner. The FIR pertains to the year 2016 and the petitioner is native of Punjab. The accused- petitioner was arrested later on, in pursuant to the standing warrant. The petitioner never produced any document before the police showing that the vehicle was handed over to Shambhu Singh. Further the petitioner was found to be the owner of the vehicle and in the seized vehicle, registration certificate and the driving license alongwith other documents disclosing petitioner's identity were found. The matter is still under trial and as per the provisions of Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act, the burden lies heavily upon the accused to explain that the vehicle was handed over to Shambhu Singh and it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner that in the vehicle, contraband articles were being transported. Further, the contraband articles recovered from the vehicle contains commercial quantity of poppystraw, therefore, the bail application of the petitioner deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, the conduct of the petitioner itself dis-entitles him for grant of bail, as the petitioner remained absent for almost eight years. [2025:RJ-JP:31863] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7290/2025] The FIR was lodged in the year 2016 and the police made all efforts to arrest the petitioner however the petitioner could not be arrested and later on arrested in pursuant to the standing warrant. Considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /15