[2025:RJ-JP:4503] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6914/2024 Radhagopal Gupta S/o Sh. Murlidhar Gupta, Aged About 64 Years, R/o House No. 548, Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazaar, Jaipur. (Accused Petitioner Is In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus Central Beaura Of Narcotics, Through Special Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 03/02/2025 The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 01/2024 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Narcotics, Jaipur, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 8/21 and 8/22 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that recovery from the possession of the petitioner itself is doubtful as the investigating agency has made petitioner’s son as one of the recovery witness. Petitioner’s son PW-3 Rajat Gupta has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. Prosecution has examined only three witnesses. The accused petitioner is in custody since 17.01.2024 and further trial of the case will take considerable time. Therefore, considering the statement of PW-3 Rajat Gupta and long incarceration of the petitioner, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:4503] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6914/2024] Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and contended that after getting secret information huge quantity of Espasmo-Foxyvon (Tramadol), Rlam (Alprazolam), Elprasafe (Alprazolam) Monocoff-Plus (Codeine Phosphate), drugs were recovered from the petitioner. It is also contended that at this stage, merely relying upon the statement of PW-3, it cannot be said that recovery was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner, also other witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore considering the impact of rider imposed under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Heard and perused the material available on the record. It is alleged against the petitioner that from his conscious possession massive quantity of prohibited drugs containing commercial quantity were recovered, merely because recovery witness has not supported the prosecution story, it cannot be said that no recovery was effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NCB Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022 Livelaw (SC) 613 has held that mere long incarceration itself cannot be a ground to dilute the conditions enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS, therefore considering the above facts without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /1