[2026:RJ-JP:12675] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 7th Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2083/2026 Ajay Yadav S/o Shri Karmveer Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kosali Tehsil Kosali, Dist. Rewari (Haryana) (The Accused Peti- tioner Presently Confined In Sub Jail Neema Ka Thana Dist. Sikar). ---Accused-Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Special PP (Narcotics Control Bureau) Information Officer, Jodhpur, Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Vibhuti Sharma with Ms. Anindya Gupta Ms. Suman Kalal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl. PP with Mr. Vaibhav Jhankara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 1 Arguments concluded on 25.03.2026 2 Order reserved on 25.03.2026 3 Full Order or operative part pronounced Full Order 4 Pronounced on 01.04.2026 1. The instant Seventh bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused- applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 08(10)(10) (01)/NCV/JZU/2018 registered at Police Station N.C.B., Jodhpur (Raj.) for the offence(s) under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the [2026:RJ-JP:12675] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026] present case. It was contended that as per the prosecution’s own record, no contraband has been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant, and the alleged recovery is attributed solely to the vehicle, not to the physical possession of the applicant. It was also submitted that a co-accused arising out of the same FIR, involving the same vehicle and the same alleged recovery, has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018. Additionally, it was apprised to the Court that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 04.01.2018, and possesses deep roots in society. 3. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor had vehemently opposed the present bail application, and submitted that as per the inspection conducted by the Police Department, and report submitted thereafter, the applicant was apprehended while driving the vehicle from which contraband, weighing 40.080 kilograms of ganja, was recovered, which is far in excess of the notified commercial quantity i.e. 20 Kilograms. It was submitted that the arrest of the applicant was effected on 04.01.2018, and the applicant made statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he has admitted his role in the alleged offence. 4. It was also submitted that the applicant was earlier granted interim bail; however, he violated the conditions thereof by absconding, as a consequence of which non-bailable warrants were issued, followed by proceedings for proclamation. During the said period, another FIR bearing No. 211 came to be registered against the applicant at Police Station Jhojun Kalan, Haryana, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act; therefore, enlarging him on bail shall hamper the entire process, moreso, he shall be a threat to [2026:RJ-JP:12675] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026] society. It was further submitted that as per the custody certificate, the applicant has undergone custody of only about three years, and that he was re-arrested after having absconded. Therefore, the plea of the learned counsel representing the accused-applicant, pertaining to prolonged incarceration, is not tenable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. 5. In support of the arguments made insofar, learned Special Public Prosecutor had placed reliance upon a catena of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, NCB vs. Mohit Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374; Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406; Union of India vs. Ram Samujh, reported in (1999) 9 SCC 429; and Union of India vs. Vigin K. Varghese (2025 INSC 1316), and it was contended that prolonged incarceration or anticipated delay in trial cannot, by itself, constitute “reasonable grounds” for grant of bail when the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. It was submitted that in cases involving commercial quantity, the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 must be satisfied, and unless the same are met, grant of bail remains an exception rather than the rule. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. At the outset, it is to be noted that the recovery effected in the present case is of commercial quantity, i.e. 40.080 Kilograms of ganja, thereby attracting the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS [2026:RJ-JP:12675] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026] Act. In such cases, bail can be granted only upon satisfaction of the twin conditions, namely: (i) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, the contraband in substantial quantity has been recovered from the vehicle being driven by the applicant. The applicant has also, prima facie, admitted his involvement in his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Additionally, the conduct of the applicant in absconding for years altogether, committing offences of akin nature (subsequent FIR also being registered for offences under the provisions of NDPS Act), after being granted interim bail, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation proceedings, disentitles him from seeking discretionary relief. The contention regarding parity with the co-accused does not persuade this Court in view of the distinct role attributed to the present applicant, who was allegedly driving the vehicle carrying the contraband, coupled with his subsequent conduct. 8. Further, qua the argument of prolonged incarceration it can be noted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohit Aggarwal (supra) and other orders, as relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, mere length of custody or possible delay in trial cannot, by itself, be a ground to grant bail in cases involving commercial quantity, unless the statutory conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act are satisfied. 9. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has been able to make out [2026:RJ-JP:12675] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2083/2026] a case fulfilling the twin conditions mandated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /