[2026:RJ-JP:29769] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11833/2026 CNR: RJHC020685912026 | URN: CRLMB / 21786U / 2026 Anil Singh Tanwar S/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Tanwaro Ki Dhani Tan Pachlangi, Police Station Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (At present confined in District Jail, Jhunjhunu) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 30/07/2026 izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls viuh fu;fer tekur gsrq ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 483 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk mn;iqjokVh] ftyk >qa>quw esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 123@2026 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 8@20] 25 Lokid vkS"kf/k ,oa eu% izHkkoh inkFkZ vf/kfu;e] 1985 esa is'k fd;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr us dksbZ vijk/k ugha fd;k gSA izdj.k esa tCr'kqnk xkatk 20-141 fdyksxzke crk;k x;k gS] tcfd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka o cht dks feykdj dqy otu 20-141 fdyksxzke crk;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr xkats ds ikS/ks dh ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka o cht ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼iii½¼b½ ds rgr xkats dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs gSaA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr fnukad 13-06-2026 ls vfHkj{kk esa gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) dksbZ vkijkf/kd izdj.k fopkjk/khu ugha gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:29769] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026] izdj.k ds fopkj.k esa le; yxsxkA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj mls tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd us vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa fuEu fofu'p; izLrqr fd;s%& 1. Hasubhai Kamabhai Thakor Vs The State of Gujarat; 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 925. 2. Lekhraj Meena @ Monu Vs State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7068/2023; Order Dated 28.06.2023. 3. Indrapal Vs State of Rajasthan and Another Connected Matter; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9414/2025; Order Dated 06.12.2025. 4. Mohammad Gulam Moinuddin Vs State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11504/2019; Order Dated 06.09.2019. 5. Rajesh Sharma Vs The State of Rajasthan; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2376/2024; Order Dated 27.02.2024. 6. Yogesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Another Connected Matter; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 9245/2026; Order Dated 21.07.2026. fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl ds nkSjku rdZ jgk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,oa lgvfHk;qDr jkts'k Hkkaofj;k ds dCts'kqnk okgu Loh¶V dh fMXxh esa ls 20-141 fdyksxzke 'kq) xkatk cjken gqvk gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk gSA lgvfHk;qDr jkts'k Hkkaofj;k dk tekur izkFkZuk i= fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr 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 orZeku izdj.k esa rF;ksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 12-06-2025 dks Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk mn;iqjokVh] ftyk >qa>quw }kjk nkSjkus fuxjkuh [2026:RJ-JP:29769] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026] Loh¶V dkj esa vkifÙktud oLrq gksus dh laHkkouk ds vk/kkj ij mDr Loh¶V dkj dks jksdk rks pkyd lhV ij jkts'k Hkkaofj;k o cxy okyh lhV ij izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfuy raoj ik;s x;s vkSj dkj dh fMXxh esa xkats ls Hkjk gqvk dV~Vk ik;k x;kA dV~Vs ds vanj gYds Hkwjs jax dh IykfLVd dh Vsi;qDr iklZyuqek iSdsV ik;s x;s] ftuds vanj gjs iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka o chtuqek xkatk Hkjk ik;k x;kA Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk mn;iqjokVh us IykfLVd dh ikWyhFkhu] iklZyuqek Vsi;qDr dk otu fd;k rks dqy otu 680 xzke gksuk ik;k x;k vkSj xkats dk 'kq) otu 20-141 fdyksxzke gksuk ik;k x;kA xkats ds 'kq) otu esa gjs iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka] o cht dk otu gS ;k ugha bl rF; dks QnZ tCrh esa ugha crk;k x;k gSA QnZ tCrh eknd inkFkZ xkatk esa xkatk dk 'kq) otu 20-141 fdyksxzke gksuk crk;k x;k gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk gSA mDr xkatk esa gjs iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka] cht fdruh ek=k esa gS vkSj mDr iÙksnkj] ifÙk;ka] dfy;ka] cht ,u-Mh-ih-,l- vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼iii½¼b½ ds rgr xkats dh ifjHkk"kk esa vkrs gS ;k ugha vkrs gS] bl rF; dks fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk xq.kkoxq.k ij r; fd;k tk ldrk 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 offence involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail unless the twin conditions laid down therein are satisfied, namely, (i) the public prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any such offence while on bail. 15. For the sake of convenience Section 37(1) is reproduced hereinbelow:— “37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)- (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 2[offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences 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 [2026:RJ-JP:29769] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026] (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” 16. In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence 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 offence under the NDPS Act a liberal approach ignoring the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is impermissible. Recording a finding 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 effect, 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. 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 trafficking 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 offences 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 [2026:RJ-JP:29769] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-11833/2026] 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. mijksDr fofu'p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds vk/kkj ij okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k esa ik;s x;s eknd inkFkZ ds ekeys esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr tekur dk vf/kdkjh rHkh ekuk tk ldrk gS] tc mlds fo:) dksbZ vijk/k izFken`"V;k ugha curk gksA bl izdj.k esa xkats dk 'kq) otu 20-141 fdyksxzke crk;k x;k gS] tks okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k dk gSA izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ,oa lgvfHk;qDr }kjk okgu Loh¶V esa okf.kfT;d ek=k ls vf/kd ek=k ds eknd inkFkZ dk ifjogu fd;k tk jgk FkkA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksfir vijk/k vR;ar xaHkhj fdLe dk gSA izdj.k esa vHkh vuqla/kku yafcr gSA izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vHkh vkjksi i= izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA vr% izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr 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@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vfuy flag raoj iq= j?kqohj flag dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J 34/AKSHAY KUMAR PAREEK/P.A.