[2025:RJ-JP:38702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8146/2025 Ramroop Mali Son Of Shri Parsadilal Mali, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Rampura, Post Dabar, Tehsil And Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan ( At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veer Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 19/09/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Ramroop Mali Son Of Shri Parsadilal Mali seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.332/2025 dated 09.06.2025 registered at P.S. Kho Nagaoriyan District- Jaipur City (East), for the offence under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:38702] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8146/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is a handicapped person, and his 80-year-old father is seriously ill and critically counting his last days. He further submits that police has not followed the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act while effecting search and seizure. He further submits that the applicant's continued detention serves no purpose, and therefore, he is entitled to bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. The applicant-accused was apprehended on 16.06.2025 and during the search, 545 grams of smack was recovered from the possession of the accused. The recovered quantity of smack is in excess of the threshold limit for "commercial quantity" as prescribed under the NDPS Act, thus invoking the stringent provisions under Section 37 of the Act. The grant of bail is severely restricted in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, and the onus is on the accused to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of bail. The purpose behind this provision is to stop the growing menace of narcotic trafficking, which poses a significant threat to the society at large. 7. In case of State of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo 2024 INSC 537 Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a 3 Judge bench judgment in case of Customs, New Delhi vs [2025:RJ-JP:38702] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8146/2025] Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 has observed that while considering bail in a commercial quantity something more than prima facie grounds as to be existed in favor of accused which contemplates substantial and probable cause for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Considering the judgment in case of State of Kerala vs Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 it was held that broad parameters laid down by the Supreme Court has to be followed while considering an application for bail moved by an accused involved under the NDPS Act. After considering the legal provisions, the bail granted to Smt. “X” by the High Court was canceled and she was directed to surrender before the Trial Court. 8. In case of NCB Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 1001-1002/2022) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 37 of NDPS Act has observed that the length of period of custody is not a ground to release accused on bail. Recently, a bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi was under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs. Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 and while remitting back the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted while keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the act along with the impact on society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally as that may ultimately frustrate the object and purpose of preamble of the Act. While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature. [2025:RJ-JP:38702] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8146/2025] 9. In case of Union Of India vs Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu Criminal appeal No. ..... of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 2351/2023) Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Article 21 of the Constitution of India and judgment in case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (2022) SCC Online 825 has observed that bail granted to two accused persons does not seem to be good and sufficient reason who were involved in drug trafficking. In order dated 28.03.2023, Supreme Court not only set aside the bail order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad but observed that it is necessary to record prima facie finding on involvement of applicant-accused and in absence of recording satisfaction the grant of bail is erroneous. 10. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 11. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Ramroop Mali Son of Shri Parsadilal Mali is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /69