[2025:RJ-JP:8817] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2391/2025 Hitesh Kumar Bulani @ Hitesh Sindhi S/o Late Shri Chandra Prakash Bulani, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 111, Rajamal Ka Talab, Kanwar Nagar, Tripoliya Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ---Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Narcotic, Through Special PP ---Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Maheshwari Ms. Kumkum Mandhanya Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on 24/02/2025 Pronounced on 28/ 02/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.01/2024, registered at Police Station CBN, Jaipur (Raj.), for the offences under Sections 8/21, 8/22C and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. It is contended that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the confessional statement of the co-accused Radhagopal Gupta, rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, in which he has named the present petitioner. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the [2025:RJ-JP:8817] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2391/2025] case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 (16) SCC 31, has categorically held that the statements rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible. It is further contended that the claim of the prosecution that the petitioner communicated with the co-accused over a specific mobile number for the purchase of the contraband is also not valid. No transcription whatsoever is produced before the Court. There is no substantive material to corroborate the fact that the petitioner has supplied the contraband articles containing a commercial quantity of Tradamol, Alprazolam, and Codeine Phosphate to the other co- accused, Radhagopal Gupta. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has cooperated with the investigation, and the trial is likely to be prolonged; the accused-petitioner has been behind bars since 19.01.2024. It is also contended that the witnesses so far recorded have not uttered a word about the indulgence of the petitioner in the alleged crime. This Court dismissed the first bail application of the accused petitioner vide order dated 20.12.2024. The Court did not consider the impact of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the second bail application of the accused petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is argued that the first bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2024. After the bail application's dismissal, there is no change in circumstances. This Court cannot review the previous rejection of the bail order passed against the accused petitioner. Enough material is placed on the record showing indulgence of the present accused-petitioner in supplying Tradamol, Alprazolam, and [2025:RJ-JP:8817] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2391/2025] Codeine Phosphate to the other co-accused, Radhagopal Gupta. The prosecution's case rests upon the statement of the co-accused rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, along with the communication between the accused petitioner and the co- accused. Therefore, the second bail application of the accused petitioner deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court dismissed the first bail application of the accused petitioner. Thereafter, there is no change in circumstance. The arguments were also raised at the time of the first bail application that Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be relied upon. The same arguments have been put before this Court in the second bail application. The content of the complaint, along with the call record of the accused petitioner and co-accused Radhagopal Gupta, clearly shows that the accused petitioner was in continuous contact with the other co-accused. The co-accused, Radhagopal Gupta, has revealed that he was receiving the commercial quantity of the drugs from the accused-petitioner and paid a considerable amount in cash. In the statement rendered under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the accused-petitioner has admitted the fact that he was regularly supplying the drugs to the co- accused Radhagopal Gupta and getting the drugs from the other co-accused Rakesh. In the complaint also, a record of the connectivity of the accused-petitioner, co-accused Radhagopal Gupta and Rakesh has been documented; therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused-petitioner was not involved with the other co-accused. [2025:RJ-JP:8817] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2391/2025] 6. Therefore, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner, Hitesh Kumar Bulani @ Hitesh Sindhi, is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 12