[2026:RJ-JP:16359] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12470/2025 Kedar Thapa S/o Ranbahadur, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Games Village Lal Mati Station Basistha, District Kaamroop (Assam) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar, with Mr. Ashutosh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 30/2021 registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Baran for offence under Sections 8, 15 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act 1985 and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet has been filed under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case for offence punishable under Section 8/25 of the NDPS Act as the petitioner is [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] said to be the registered owner of the vehicle bearing number AS- 01-JC-3404 vehicle (mini truck) from which the alleged contraband Doda Chura weighing 1790 kg. was recovered. Counsel further submits that accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case merely being the registered owner of the vehicle from which the alleged contraband Doda Chura, more than the commercial quantity is said to have been recovered on 17.02.2021. He further submits that the petitioner has already sold the said vehicle to one Mr. Mangilal vide sale agreement dated 15.10.2019 and since then the petitioner has no control over the said vehicle. Learned counsel also submits that at the relevant time the, accused-petitioner was neither present at the location to connect him with the offence nor he is having control over the said vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 12.09.2025 and police after completion of the investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and Section 25 of the NDPS Act clearly mandates that the registered owner of the vehicle from which the contraband is said to be recovered, is liable to be punished for contravention of the provisions of NDPS Act. He further submits that the accused-petitioner could be arrested after [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] a long time as he is the resident of far away place of Assam and in case he is released on bail, there would be chances of his fleeing. 4, Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the challan papers. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle, mini truck, bearing number AS-01-JC-3404; alleged contraband i.e. Doda Chura weighing 1790 kg. was recovered from his mini truck and the said contraband is much more than the stipulated commercial quantity. 6. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already sold the said vehicle i.e. mini truck to one Mangilal, vide sale agreement dated 15.10.2019, but merely sale or agreement in that regard, is not sufficient unless the registration of the vehicle is transferred in the name of the alleged purchaser or the petitioner is able to prove that the said vehicle was being used by the purchaser Mangilal. However, counsel appearing for the petitioner is not able to show that the said vehicle was in control of Mangilal and not the petitioner. 7. This Court in case of Jeetram V/s State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10750/2024) decided on 11.09.2024 has observed as under:- "7. The provisions for making consideration of the bail application of the accused petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case are sections 25, 35, 37 and 54 of the Act of 1985, which are quoted as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] “25. Punishment for allowing premises, etc., to be used for commission of an offence.— Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence. 35. Presumption of culpable mental state.—(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation.—In this section “culpable mental state” includes intention motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. (2) For the purpose of this section , a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability. 37. Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3 [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 (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. [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles.—In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of— (a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; (b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated; (c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; or (d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily.” 8. It is not in dispute that the accused petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No. RJ-26-CA- 4005 in which co-accused persons namely; Bhajan Lal Kumhar and Khushi Ram Jat were traveling with the alleged contraband i.e. Doda Chura weighing 75.309 kg., which was recovered and seized. The said contraband is more than the stipulated commercial quantity notified by the Government. 9. On notice dated 11.06.2024 issued under section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the accused petitioner by the SHO of Police Station Baroni, the accused petitioner has given in writing that on 31.12.2023 at about 2:00 AM his owned car bearing registration number RJ-26-CA-4005 was being driven by his cousin brother Bhajan Lal. It has not been stated by the accused petitioner that co-accused person namely; Bhajan Lal has taken the car on [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] demand by misleading the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner in the memo of bail application has stated that the car in question on demand was given to the relative of the accused petitioner whereas Bhajan Lal is the family member of the accused petitioner. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that if there is a personal knowledge of existence of narcotic substance in a property and the person has control over the same, even if he is not physically present, he is deemed to be in possession of the prohibited and contraband substance. Personal knowledge as to the existence of the "chattel" i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. To give an example, a person can conceal the prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter but he would still be said to be in possession of the same. In the instant case, the applicant was in close relation to the co-accused and had allowed his car to be used by the co-accused at about 2AM in the night. The applicant thus had personal knowledge of the fact that the co-accused had possession of his car in the wee hours of the night and was using it for illegal purposes. 16. Section 25 of the NDPS Act creates a vicarious liability against the person who is the owner or is having control of the property concerned and who knowingly permitted usage of such property for the commission of a crime under the Act. The applicant is in close relation with the co-accused and noted to had been in regular contact with the co- accused. Thus, the applicant ought to know about the doings of the co-accused and the fact that he still lent his vehicle to them points towards him having knowledge of the presence of contraband in his vehicle. Thus, it has to be presumed that possession of contraband substance recovered from the vehicle in question was conscious in nature unless the said presumption is dislodged by the applicant. [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CBI Vs. Dhan Singh, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 248, has observed in para No.4,5 and 6 as under:- “4. On both counts the High Court is factually not correct. The respondent had been charged not only for offence under Section 20(b), but also for offence under Section 25 of the Act in terms of the order of the Special Judge dated 27-9-2001 whereby the charge has been amended. The maximum punishment of the offence of which the respondent had been charged was 10 years and not five years. 5. Section 37 of the Act is mandatory. Before grant of bail the ingredients mentioned therein are required to be examined and bail granted only when the applicant fulfils the conditions stipulated in Section 37. Section 37 was not at all adverted to by the High Court. We may note that the bail granted to the respondent by the Special Judge on 23-4-2001 was cancelled on 29-6-2001 by the Special Judge. Another bail application was rejected on 28-8-2001. On 8-10-2001, the High Court rejected the petition seeking bail. In the said order reference was made to the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the Act. Despite this background and without adverting to Section 37 the High Court decided to grant bail and we say no more, except that some irrelevant matters have been noticed in the order, namely, the respondent having telephone and ration card etc. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 29-1-2002 and direct that the respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith.” 8. In view of the discussions made above and the fact that the case is of year 2021 and the petitioner could be arrested after a long time by making several efforts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:16359] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-12470/2025] 9. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /4