[2026:RJ-JP:15251] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4064/2026 Nihal Singh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Bholu Tehsil Ramganjmandi Police Station Chechat District Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus C.b.n., Through Special P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 10/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station CBN, Kota District Kota for the offences under Sections 8/18 (b), 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the filing of the charge-sheet. It is contended that, apart from the disclosure statement of the co-accused from whom commercial quantity of opium weighing 3.047 kg was recovered, there is no substantive evidence available on record to indicate petitioner’s involvement in the alleged transportation of the contraband. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged transactions [2026:RJ-JP:15251] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4064/2026] between the petitioner and the co-accused pertain to the period from 17.01.2025 to 25.02.2025, whereas the recovery of opium from the co-accused was effected on 08.03.2025. It is argued that the co-accused is a relative of the petitioner and the transactions between them are not connected with the alleged offence. It is also contended that at the relevant time when the recovery was effected from the co-accused, the petitioner was at Haridwar. Although there exists a case registered against the petitioner under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act, the same pertains to the year 2019 and is not connected with the present case. It is further submitted that, in the present case, the petitioner has disclosed that the opium was supplied by one Ram Kumar; however, the investigating agency has not impleaded the said Ram Kumar as a co-accused. It is argued that the petitioner is in custody since long and the trial of the case will take time. Prima facie, the prosecution has failed to establish the petitioner’s involvement in the transportation or supply of the contraband, therefore the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that upon thorough investigation, it has been found that the petitioner was involved in supplying opium to the main accused. It is contended that after the recovery of the contraband from the co-accused, he disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that the said opium had been supplied by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the investigation has established, through the bank records of the petitioner and the co-accused, that they were engaged in continuous financial transactions, thereby [2026:RJ-JP:15251] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4064/2026] indicating their involvement in the alleged offence. It is also contended that the petitioner, in his disclosure statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has admitted that the contraband was supplied by him to the co-accused. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner has also been involved in another case under the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Modak District Kota Rural under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the past conduct and criminal record of the petitioner clearly indicate his involvement in the supply and transportation of contraband. In view of the rider contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is submitted that the petitioner does not satisfy the conditions for grant of bail, and therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the complaint alongwith the material enclosed with the complainant. 5. Considering the fact that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in the disclosure statement of the co-accused, who has specifically stated that the contraband was supplied by the present petitioner, and further taking into account the financial transactions between the petitioner and the co-accused, which prima facie substantiate the prosecution’s case, this Court is of the view that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from the grant of bail. 6. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /43