[2026:RJ-JP:4503] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1431/2026 Harisingh S/o Narayan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Roru Choti, Post Office Badi Roru, Police Laxmangarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Tonk). ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Special Public Prosecutor, Narcotics Control Bureau, Regional Unit, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Mr. Banwari Singh Ms. Chinky Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP with Mr. Vaibhav Jhankara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/01/2026 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Harisingh S/o Narayan Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. VII(IO)07/NCB/JPZU/2025 dated 19.05.2025 registered at P.S. Regional Unit District-Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 8/20, 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the [2026:RJ-JP:4503] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-1431/2026] jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 16-9-2025 and now a charge sheet has been filed. He further referred sequence of events and submitted that the truck was intercepted on 19-5-2025 whereas after interception a notice was served to present petitioner and on 20-5-2025, the petitioner was arrested. He further referred the circumstances mentioned in charge-sheet by NCB and submitted that on the basis of statement of driver present petitioner was named as suspect, though there is no recovery from possession of present petitioner. He further submitted that as per notice and the interrogation, a particular mobile number was allegedly involved in the incident but NCB has not recovered said mobile number either from possession of present petitioner, or from any other person. He also referred the statement of driver, other witness and present petitioner and submitted that any statement made under section 67 of NDPS Act is not admissible under the law and for this purpose he placed reliance upon 3-judge bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1. He further referred the notice about the interrogation served to the petitioner and seizure of mobile, which was effected two days after the arrest of present petitioner, and submitted that the NCB has not taken care of [2026:RJ-JP:4503] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-1431/2026] the fact that the petitioner was called for interrogation for a particular purpose and that without fulfilling the purpose, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused. He further referred order dated 22-01-2025 in bail application number 1418/2024, Zakir Hussain Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, passed by a co-ordinate bench of the Delhi High Court and submitted that if presence of independent witness is not secured before effecting the search and seizure, then the accused is entitled for bail. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of NCB and while referring judgment in case of Jothi @ Nagajothi Vs. The State represented by Inspector General of Police, criminal appeal number 259/2025, decided on 11-12- 2025, and submitted that any of the procedural irregularity not fatal to the case of present prosecution. He further referred and submitted that as per judgment in case of Sureinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, 2020 (2) SCC 563 and Jarnail Singh Vs State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 3 SCC 521, mere non-examination of independent witnesses is not itself a ground to reject the story of prosecution. He further submitted that the respondents have submitted a detailed report indicating communication between the petitioner and several accused involved in the illegal transportation of 296 kg of ganja. He further submitted that there is a financial transaction and same trail is also provided by them to show that the present petitioner is [2026:RJ-JP:4503] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-1431/2026] actively involved in illegal transaction of “ganja” from other states. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned special public prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. 6. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-05-2025, the Narcotics Central Bureau, (NCB) has intercepted a vehicle number HR56 A 9381 near Sonwa Toll Plaza, Tonk, and recovered 296.204 kg of illicit ganja from possession of accused Bablu Singh and Neshar. After drawing memo and other proceedings, a report is registered and during interrogation, involvement of petitioner was found. The statement of accused Bablu Singh and Neshar were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act, who disclosed that the ganja is transported as per instruction of Mukesh and Manjit for delivery at Fatehpur Sikar to Hari Singh, (present petitioner). A notice has been served to Hari Singh and on 20-5-2025, he was arrested, after inquiry, a charge sheet is filed.The material on record collected by the NCB indicate that multiple calls were made by Hari Singh to Mukesh, who was named as illicit ganja supplier. The material also indicate communication between Nishad and Mukesh and further Mukesh with Manjit Singh and Bablu Singh. The number of calls on the basis of CDR analysis are large in number. The NCB has further collected details of multiple payments made by Hari Singh to Mukesh by using various bank accounts and UPI IDs and the details are provided with reports submitted by NCB. [2026:RJ-JP:4503] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-1431/2026] 7. The recovered quantity in the instant case is 296.204 kg and same is commercial quantity. In case of commercial quantity, section 37 of NDPS Act is applicable. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering application for bail, but certainly a liberal approach in a matter relating to NDPS is uncalled for. 8. In case of Jothi @ Nagajothi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering and relying upon judgment in case of Surinder Kumar (supra) and Jarnail Singh (supra), has held that the testimony of official witness cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their official status. Considering aforesaid judgment, the ratio as referred in case of Zakir Hussain (supra) is not applicable. 9. Here in this case, the statement of Bablu Singh and Neshar were recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act. Further, the delivery point of illicit Ganja was also recorded in memo by search and seizure officer on the basis of statement of Bablu Singh and Neshar, present petitioner was called for interrogation by serving a notice dated 19.05.2025. Afterwards, the statement of present petitioner was also recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act. 10. In case of Tofan Singh (supra), a three-judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue in respect of section 67 of NDPS Act held that a statement recorded under section 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as an confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. The material on record clearly indicates that the [2026:RJ-JP:4503] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-1431/2026] statement of present petitioner cannot be used against the petitioner as per ratio laid down in case of Tofan Singh (supra), but there are other evidence which can be considered by the court at the time of trial. Moreover, at the stage of bail, the court has to consider prima facie the evidence forwarded by the prosecuting agency and we have considered the entire evidence on record, and we are refraining ourselves from examining the material on merits. 11. Considering the role and involvement and also the fact that the recovery is of huge quantity of illicit “ganja” which is commercial quantity in nature, we are of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner accused on bail. 12. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 13. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Harisingh S/o Narayan Singh is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /3