[2026:RJ-JP:29681] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10776/2026 CNR: RJHC020642982026 | URN: CRLMB / 19963U / 2026 Meenu Gupta D/o Kunwarsen Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o A36, Hanuman Nagar II, Lalchandpura, Police Station Khorabisal, Jaipur. (Presently Lodged In Judicial Custody Central Mahila Jail Ghat Gate, Jaipur) ----Applicant/Accused Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Special PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma Ms. Garima Dudhani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Surendra Singh, S.H.O., Khora, Bisal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 30/07/2026 izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk [kksjkchly ftyk t;iqj if'pe esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 154@2026 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8] 22 Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk 30 o"khZ; efgyk gS vkSj mldk 11 o"kZ dk ,d csVk gS] mldh ns[kHkky o ijofj'k djus okyk dksbZ ugha gS rFkk foHkkx }kjk mldks mRd`"V dk;Z djus ds fy, gSM dkaLVscy ds in ij inksUufr nh xbZ gSA ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ foyac ls ntZ djkbZ xbZ gSA fnukad 05-04-2026 [2026:RJ-JP:29681] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10776/2026] dks 2 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) ntZ djkbZ xbZ gSa] ftlesa ,d izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=h uxj] t;iqj esa ntZ gqbZ vkSj nwljh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 154@2026 iqfyl Fkkuk [kksjk chly ftyk t;iqj if'pe esa ntZ gbZA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 esa izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dk tekur izkFkZuk i= la[;k 9366@2026 esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-07-2026 ds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tk pqdk gSA izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dks >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA fof/k&foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ vHkh ugha vkbZ gSA izdj.k esa vkjksi i= izLrqr gksuk vHkh 'ks"k gSA izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa le; yxsxkA vr% izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mls tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds vuU; dCts ls dqy otu 125 xzke voS/k eknd inkFkZ MD(Mephedrone) fcuk fdlh oS/k vuqKk i= vFkok ijfeV ds cjken fd;k x;k gSA ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e esa of.kZr eknd inkFkZ dh lwph esa dze la[;k&238,Q ij vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd mDr eknd inkFkZ dh okf.kfT;d ek=k 50 xzke ls vf/kd gSA bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ls okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k esa voS/k eknd inkFkZ MD(Mephedrone) cjken gqvk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) ,d vU; vkijkf/kd izdj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=huxj t;iqj esa eknd inkFkksZa ls lacaf/kr ntZ gqvk gS] vr% izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, rFkk izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkosA eSaus mHk; i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdksZa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA [2026:RJ-JP:29681] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10776/2026] orZeku izdj.k esa fnukad 05-04-2026 dks mifujh{kd vkbZlh Fkkuk [kksjkchly t;iqj us lwpuk ij izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds edku esa ls ikjn'khZ IykfLVd ds thij iSdsV ls dqy otu 125 xzke voS/k eknd inkFkZ MD(Mephedrone) cjken fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) ,d vU; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=h uxj t;iqj esa ntZ gqbZ] mlesa Hkh izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo#) eknd inkFkZ ds vijk/k dk vkjksi Fkk] mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 esa eknd inkFkZ okf.kfT;d ek=k ls de dk Fkk] ftl dkj.k izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dk tekur izkFkZuk i= la[;k 9366@2026 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 02-07-2026 ds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu bl izdj.k esa izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ls okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k esa eknd inkFkZ cjken gqvk gS rFkk ,d vU; vkijkf/kd izdj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 107@2026 eknd inkFkZ ls lacaf/kr iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkL=h uxj] t;iqj esa ntZ gqvk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 37 ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku ykxw gksrs gSaA bl Lrj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk us dksbZ vkijkf/kd d`R; ugha fd;k gSA izdj.k vUos"k.k ds Lrj ij gSA eknd inkFkksZa ds izdj.k esa vR;ar o`f) gks jgh gS] ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us bls xaHkhjrk ls fy;k gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; ^^Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh Alias Pappu; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 346" ds lqlaxr Hkkx dks ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& "14. This apart, it is noticed that the High Court, in passing the impugned order of bail, had lost sight of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which, inter alia, provides that no person accused of an ofence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are satisfed, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an ofence and that he is not likely to commit any such ofence while on bail. 15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced hereinbelow:— “37. Ofences to be cognizable and nonbailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)- [2026:RJ-JP:29681] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10776/2026] (a) every ofence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an ofence punishable for 2[ofences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for ofences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such ofence and that he is not likely to commit any ofence while on bail.” 16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an ofence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an ofence and that he is not likely to commit any ofence while on bail." blh izdkj ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr fofu'p; ^^State of Punjab Versus Balraj Singh @ Billa; 2023 INSC 618" ds iSjk la[;k 14] 15] 16] 17 dks Hkh ;gka m)fjr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gksxk%& 14. As rightly submitted by the appellant State, this Court, in Lalrintluanga Sailo (Supra) while setting aside the bail granted by the High Court therein had held that consideration on the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is essential by the concerned Court. It was observed: 10. Thus, the provisions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act and the decisions referred supra revealing the consistent view of this Court that while considering the application for bail made by an accused involved in an ofence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a fnding mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is sine qua non for granting bail to an accused under the NDPS Act cannot be avoided while passing orders on such applications.” 15. To the similar efect, this Court in State by the Inspector of Police v. B. Ramu reiterated that satisfaction with the conditions laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is mandatory while entertaining a prayer for bail involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs. [See also: Ajay Kumar Singh alias Pappu (Supra)] 16. In similar circumstances, this Court in Union of India v. [2026:RJ-JP:29681] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10776/2026] Namdeo Ashruba Nakade observed that the mandatory nature of Section 37 cannot be dispensed with: “12. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the Respondent-accused is involved in drug trafcking in an organized manner. Consequently, no case for dispensing with mandatory requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is made out in the present matter. 13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that as the accused has been charged with ofences punishable with ten to twenty years rigorous imprisonment, it cannot be said that the Respondent has been incarcerated for an unreasonably long time.” 17. Keeping in view the above expositions of law, we now proceed to examine the impugned order. The abovementioned decisions of this Court display the consistent view that when it comes to cases involving commercial quantity of narcotics, the mandatory requirements of Section 37 ought to be considered. It is not in dispute that the case at hand, involves commercial quantity. In such a scenario, consideration and reference to the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act was mandatory. Upon a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that there has been no consideration at all by the High Court on the twin conditions. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ls eknd inkFkZ dh tCrh fof/k vuqdwy gqbZ gS ;k ugha] ;g lk{; dh fo"k; oLrq gS] ftldk vo/kkj.k fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; ds i'pkr xq.kkoxq.kksa ij vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ls cjken'kqnk eknd inkFkZ] mldk vkijkf/kd fjdkWMZ rFkk izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.k&nks"kksa ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk bl izØe ij izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ;k@vfHk;qDrk ehuw xqIrk iq=h Jh dqojlsu xqIrk dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J 22/KISHAN SONI