[2025:RJ-JP:3392] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6303/2024 1. Babulal Bishnoi S/o Late Shri Vala Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 59 Years, Resident of Village Fitkasni, P.O. Guda Vishnoiyan, Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Banar, Jodhpur ( Rajasthan). 342027. 2. Bansi Lal Vishnoi S/o Shri Harlal, Aged About 60 Years, Resident of 104A, Gandhi Nagar, Purani Pyau, Mangru Punjla , Jodhpur ( Rajasthan)- 342001. ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Ganga Ram, Police Station Beawar, Sadar, District Beawar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/01/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned FIR No.429/2022 registered with Police Station Beawar Sadar, Ajmer, for the offence under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act and 420, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Panel Code (for short “IPC”) qua the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the above offences related to the commission of an incident under the NDPS Act, the instant FIR has been registered against the co- accused petitioners. Counsel submits that during the course of [2025:RJ-JP:3392] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6303/2024] investigation, it was revealed that the vehicle in question belonged to Laxmikant, who sold the same to Jagdish. Counsel submits that subsequently, Jagdish sold the same vehicle to Mohan Ram on 09.09.2022 and two witnesses Javtaram & Sohan Lal attested the said sale deed. Petitioner No.1 is a Notary Public and petitioner No. 2 is a Stamp Vendor, the stamp was purchased by Jagdish in favour of Mohan Ram from the petitioner No.2 and the same was attested by petitioner No.1 as Notary. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not concerned whatsoever, with the alleged incident, but they have unnecessarily been booked in the instant case. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that certain contrabands were found in the vehicle in question for which the instant FIR was registered for the offence under the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that during the course of investigation, it was found that the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Laxmikant sold the vehicle in question to Jagdish and Jagdish wanted to escape from his liability and involvement in the said offence, thus, he executed a fabricated sale deed in favour of Mohan Ram, hence, under these circumstances, both Jagdish and Mohan Ram have been arrested in the above cases. Counsel submits that as per the sale deed dated 09.09.2022, which was alleged to have been executed in the presence of Javtaram & Sohan Lal, the said persons in fact were not present in the premises. Counsel submits that motion of these witnesses was not found in the premises and these witnesses were not present [2025:RJ-JP:3392] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6303/2024] when the alleged execution has taken place. Hence, the possibility of involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy is ruled out. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner No.1 is a Notary Public and the petitioner No.2 is a Stamp Vendor and they are not having any concern whatsoever with the alleged incident in question, they are simply Stamp Vendor and Notary Public, and they are ready for cooperating in the investigation process. They are directed to submit a detailed comprehensive representation before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in accordance with law. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any mandatory offence is made out against the petitioners, he shall ensure the compliance of the provisions contained under Section 35 of BNSS. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be arrested without giving 15 days notice prior to their arrest. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 7. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/104