Irfan Khan S/O Jore Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11406/2025

Irfan Khan S/o Jore Khan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Thelasar, Police Station Ratannagar, Distt. Churu. (Petitioner Is In Sub Jail Sambharlake).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11618/2025 Lokesh Punia S/o Amilal Punia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Thelasar, Police Station Ratannagar District Churu. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Sambharlake)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammed Khan with Ms. Shazadi Bano and Ms. Shirin Khan

¶16

Mr. Arpit Srivastava

¶17

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma Mr. Mukesh, SHO, IO, PS Dudu, Jaipur Distt.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶19

Order

¶20

19/09/2025

¶21

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Irfan Khan S/o Jore Khan and Lokesh Punia S/o Amilal Punia seeking bail in respect of

(2 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

a criminal case registered as FIR No.42/2021 Dated 22.01.2021 registered at P.S. Dudu District – Jaipur Rural, for the offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.

¶26

Learned counsels for the applicants submit that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. They further submit that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. They also submit that the applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶27

Learned counsel for applicant accused Irfan Khan submits that police has intercepted Innova vehicle No.RJ-14-TE-4289 and recovered poppy straw in 23 gunny bags. He also submits that the Innova vehicle No.RJ-14-TE-4289 was originally registered in the name of Mohammad Farooq Chouhan and by agreement to sell dated 15.10.2020, the vehicle transferred to the present petitioner accused. He further submits that the present petitioner has transferred this vehicle to Ajeet Kumar Gurjar by agreement to sell dated 06.11.2020, which has been duly notarized. He also referred application under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC filed by Ajeet Kumar Gurjar before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dudu for release of said vehicle as an owner which was dismissed by the trial Court on 05.08.2022 on ground that there is no document to show that Irfan Khan has purchased the vehicle from registered owner Mohammad Farooq Chouhan. He also submitted that registered owner

(3 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

was summoned by the Investigating Officer but he obtained a stay in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6093/2021 under Section 482 CrPC and the present petitioner was summoned and arrested. He also submits that the present petitioner is not having any connect with the vehicle in question on date of incident and on basis of his role and involvement as owner of vehicle, he was arrested. He further submits that there is no involvement of petitioner accused either in transportation or in conspiracy or abetting the dealing of contraband narcotics.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner accused Lokesh Punia submits that this petitioner is having no link with any of the accused and registered owner of the vehicle. He further submits that there is no evidence to show involvement of the present petitioner for offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act. He further submits that initially maternal uncle of present petitioner was named who was traveling in a car and but instead of arresting him, the Investigating Officer has arrested the present petitioner accused. He also submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the present petitioner has ever hatched a conspiracy with any of the accused in dealing contraband articles.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

¶34

In pursuant to order dated 16.09.2025, the Investigating Officer Mr. Mukesh, SHO, PS Dudu, District Jaipur is called. He submits that the vehicle is still in the name of Mohammad

(4 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

Farooq Chouhan but he sold Innova vehicle to Irfan Khan and after seizure of said vehicle at Churu soon before the registration of current case, the present petitioner Irfan Khan has got released said vehicle as owner of vehicle. He also submits that the contraband is transported for the benefit of Lokesh Punia and recipient of the contraband is Lokesh Punia.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶40

On basis of an information, Mangi Lal Inspector, ATS & SOG, has intercepted an Etios car No.RJ14-TD-5282 wherein two persons Shankar Singh and Ram Pratap @ Pratap were traveling and on search of vehicle 14 KG 800 Gms of poppy straw was recovered from car and case under section 8/15 of NDPS Act was made out. During investigation, they informed that after some time another Innova Car No. RJ-14-TE 4289 with Narendra and maternal uncle of Lokesh Punia is following and on this information, police has intercepted said Innova car but vehicle driver has run away and after stopping the Innova, two persons Narendra and maternal uncle Lokesh Punia found fleeing from Innova car. Police has recovered 23 gunny bags of poppy straw from Innova Car and registered a case under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act at P.S. Dudu. Police has initially filed a charge-sheet against Shankar Singh and Ram Pratap @ Pratap under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act but kept pending against Narendra, Lokesh Punia, Ramesh Kumar, Mohammad Farooq Chouhan and

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

(5 of 9)

Mukesh Banjara. During investigation, police has interrogated Mohammad Farooq Chouhan who procured a stay on 10.12.2021 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6093/2021 on the ground that he sold the vehicle to Irfan Khan. Police has arrested Lokesh Punia on 22.08.2025 and Irfan Khan on 23.08.2025. Still the investigation is pending against Narendra and Ramesh Kumar. The conclusion drawn by police clearly indicate that actual owner is Irfan Khan and he provided his vehicle to Lokesh Punia for illegal transportation of contraband articles in huge quantity. 9. The recovered quantity of poppy straw from 23 gunny bags is more than 300 KG, thus it is a commercial quantity and it is necessary for this Court to consider provision under Section 37 of NDPS Act.

¶45

Here in this case, registered owner of the vehicle is Mohammad Farooq Chouhan, who was granted stay on 10.12.2021 on his arrest in the instant case by a Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6093/2021. As per record, Irfan Khan has executed an agreement to sell of vehicle in favour of Ajeet Kumar and the Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Ajeet Kumar. The application filed before the trial Court indicate that Ajeet Kumar has filed an application and he is owner of the vehicle. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application only on ground that there is no agreement between registered owner Mohammad Farooq Chouhan and Irfan Khan. The order dated 05.08.2022 in Application Nos. 319/2022 and 369/2022 clearly indicate that Ajeet Kumar

(6 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

has filed Form Nos. 29 and 30 along with a copy of RC and also receipt of payment from Finance Company. Considering said proceedings before learned trial Court, the grounds of bail of Irfan Khan referred by learned counsel requires consideration as it satisfies the conditions enumerated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶50

As regard to petitioner Lokesh Punia is concerned, though his maternal uncle is named in the report and at the time of interception of vehicle but the investigation suggests that and recipient of contraband articles is Lokesh Punia and there is one criminal case under the NDPS Act against Lokesh Punia. Considering the role and involvement, twin conditions as enumerated, Section 37 of NDPS Act is not satisfied in respect of Lokesh Punia. Accused Shankar Singh is already granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.03.2021 as recovered quantity from him was less then commercial.

¶51

In case of State of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo 2024 INSC 537 Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a 3 Judge bench judgment in case of Customs, New Delhi vs Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 has observed that while considering bail in a commercial quantity something more than prima facie grounds as to be existed in favor of accused which contemplates substantial and probable cause for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. Considering the judgment in case of State of Kerala vs Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 it was held that broad parameters laid down by the Supreme Court has to be

(7 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

followed while considering an application for bail moved by an accused involved under the NDPS Act. After considering the legal provisions, the bail granted to Smt. “X” by the High Court was canceled and she was directed to surrender before the Trial Court.

¶56

In case of NCB Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No.

¶57

1001-1002/2022) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 37 of NDPS Act has observed that the length of period of custody is not a ground to release accused on bail. Recently, a bail granted by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi was under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs. Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 and while remitting back the matter, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted while keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the act along with the impact on society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally as that may ultimately frustrate the object and purpose of preamble of the Act. While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act which is mandatory in nature.

¶58

The bail application filed by the petitioner-accused Lokesh Punia is liable to be dismissed but considering the defence as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner accused Irfan Khan, it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner accused Irfan Khan.

(8 of 9)

[2025:RJ-JP:38701]

[CRLMB-11406/2025]

Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused Irfan Khan is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants-accused Irfan Khan.

¶63

Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicants-accused Irfan Khan S/o Jore Khan , is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of ₹50,000/with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶64

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶65

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶66

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶67