[2026:RJ-JP:22761] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1528/2026 Nepal Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Khedi, Tehsil Pidawa, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Jail at Sub Jail, Ramganjmandi, District Kota). ----Petitioner Versus The Central Bureau of Narcotics, Government Of India Through The Special Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 27.05.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 27.05.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023 by the petitioner Nepal Singh, aged about 36 years, who was arrested by the Central Bureau of Narcotics (hereinafter to be referred to as 'CBN') on the allegation that contraband substance (Doda Chura) quantified as 248.640 kg. was recovered from his possession. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg submitted that after conducting the complete investigation, the respondent-CBN filed the charge-sheet in the form of complaint [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] dated 11.12.2025 before the concerned NDPS Court, Ramganjmandi, District Kota. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the complete case as set up by the respondent-CBN is false and a classic case of serious violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). Learned counsel submitted that, as per story of the respondent-CBN itself, the vehicle was intercepted at 11:10 P.M. on the basis of some secret information given to them on 18.06.2025. Mr. Garg further submitted that without even opening the bags which were allegedly containing the contraband and merely on the basis of the alleged oral admission of the petitioner, they took him into illegal custody from the place of incident, i.e. Dra ke Naal, Village Amjhar to their CBN office at Javra, District Ratlam. 4. Learned counsel submitted that though the vehicle in which petitioner was present was intercepted at about 11:10 P.M., however, the investigation, seizure was started around 1:45 A.M. in the office of respondent-CBN. It was also submitted that though the process started at 1:45 A.M., however, the respondent-CBN prepared the arrest memo at 12:30 dated 19.06.2025, without any mention of "A.M or "P.M.", which clearly shows that much before start of the search and seizure, he was illegally arrested by the respondent-CBN. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that contents of the complaint itself shows that the alleged contraband substance remained unopened in the intercepted vehicle and the bags were opened first time only after reaching the CBN office thereafter, the entire contraband substance was firstly mixed [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] together by opening all bags, and then fresh bags were prepared with respective weights. According to learned counsel there was no reason for opening all the bags, mixing the contents together and then preparing new bags. Further, no justification for doing the same has been stated in the entire complaint as filed before the Trial Court. He further submitted that as the entire investigation was carried out by the respondents-CBN at their office in the absence of any independent witness, thereby casted serious doubt on the fairness of the investigation. He further submitted that although several police stations were situated in between the place of interception and the office of the respondent-CBN, the vehicle was not taken to any of those police station but was instead taken directly to the office of the CBN. 6. Learned counsel further submitted although the samples of the alleged contraband substance was drawn on 19.06.2025, however the same were sent to FSL for chemical examination by office letter dated 10.07.2025. It is submitted that samples remained in the custody of the CBN for more than 20 days, thereby further created serious doubt on their sanctity and veracity of those samples. 7. To support his submissions and to show that above exercise was illegal, learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application Bearing No.3107/2025 titled as 'Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics' decided by order dated 13.08.2025. Learned counsel submitted that in the said case, involving similar [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] facts and a similar procedure was adopted by the CBN, the Co- ordinate Bench, after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this High Court, found the action of the CBN to be doubtful and granted bail to the accused therein. 8. By the above order as passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), learned counsel submitted that the facts of the present case are substantially similar and therefore petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 9. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that acting upon secret information, the vehicle carrying bags containing the alleged contraband substance was intercepted. It was submitted that noticing the practical difficulties at the place of interception, the vehicle was rightly taken to the office of the CBN, where all requisite procedures relating to seizure, sampling, arrest of the petitioner was followed and complete investigation was duly carried out as per law before filing of the complaint. 10. Learned SPP further submitted that as per the provisions of Act of 1985 the samples were properly drawn and were sent to FSL for chemical examination within a reasonable time. He further submitted that since the recovered contraband is more than commercial quantity, therefore, the rigour of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 is attracted and in the given facts and circumstances the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of bail. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] 12. This Court noted the fact that the respondent-CBN in the present case has recovered the alleged contraband substance quantified as 248.640 kg. which is much above the commercial quantity. The CBN after making the alleged seizure and arrest, has filed the complaint, i.e. the charge-sheet, before the concerned NDPS Court. It is not in dispute that the investigation is complete and no interrogation is required. 13. While going through the complete material as placed on record, this Court noted that the petitioner was intercepted with the vehicle on 18.06.2025 around 11:10 P.M. and bags of the alleged contraband substance were neither opened nor examined at the place of interception as per the record. After interception instead of taking the petitioner along-with the vehicle to the nearby police station, CBN took the vehicle and the petitioner to their office, which was at a far away place and it took more than one and a half hour for the CBN to reach its office. 14. There is no justification in the complaint as to why first of all the bags were not checked at the time and place of interception and further why the petitioner was not taken to the nearest police station for completion of the requisite procedure of search and seizure. 15 This Court further noticed that all the bags were opened first time in CBN office and the entire alleged contraband substance was emptied onto one sheet, mixed together and thereafter, repacked into separate bags for weighing and sampling. This Court fails to find any justification in the entire complaint for opening the bags, collecting the entire substance on one sheet and then making the separate bags. As a settled [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] practice and procedure, the samples are first taken from each bags as recovered, which has not been done in the present case. This exercise as done is quite strange and creates doubt about the complete action of the respondent-CBN in the case. This Court further noticed that there are several discrepancies regarding the description of time, time of the seizure and the time of arrest of the petitioner, apart from other things. 16. This Court further noticed that after preparing the samples on 19.06.2025, the same were deposited after a serious delay of almost 20 days for chemical analysis to the FSL whereas as per the Clause 1.13 of Standing Order No. 1/1988 dated 15.03.1988 mandates that samples drawn ought to be send for FSL within 72 hours from recovery. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev @ Raju Vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Appeal to Leave (Criminal) No. 15779/2025 considered unexplained delay in forwarding samples for chemical examination as a relevant circumstance while granting bail. In the present case also, the samples remained in the custody of the CBN for more than 20 days without any satisfactory justification on record and for keeping the same for such a long period has created serious doubts about its veracity. 18. This Court further considered the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra), wherein the similar exercise of CBN noted and found to be doubtful while considering the rigour of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, therefore the court granted bail to the petitioner therein. [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] 19. After going through the complete complaint, which is charge- sheet in the present case, arguments as advanced by both the learned counsel and noticing that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents of the NDPS Act in the past, also considering the rigour of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, this Court is of the view that present case is fit for exercise of its power under section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023 and therefore, this Court deems it just and reasonable to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 20. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023, is allowed and it is directed that accused- petitioner Nepal Singh S/o Madan Singh, shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The petitioner is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observations as made by this Court in the bail application will not affect trial of the case. 21. The petitioner shall mark his presence before the concerned CBN office twice a month for the entire period of the Trial. The concerned authorised person shall maintain register to mark presence of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner fails to appear twice in any month, then the same shall be considered as breach and this bail shall stands cancelled automatically without further reference to the Court. It is expected that officers of CBN shall act fairly in marking of the presence as ordered. [2026:RJ-JP:22761] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-1528/2026] 22. It is further directed that in case, the petitioner is found to be involved in any case of NDPS Act during pendency of the Trial, learned Special Public Prosecutor shall file an application for cancellation of the bail. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 59/Monika