Dismissed¶27

Anil Chouhan S/O Pritam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Bail – NDPS Act

Rajasthan HC11 Mar 2025CRLMB/1999/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 1999/2025; Anil Chouhan; NDPS Act Sections 8/15, 8/29, 37; Section 483 BNSS bail; commercial quantity poppystraw 104.300KG; FIR 62/2023 PS Mandana Kota Rural; delay in trial not a ground for bail; NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal (2022) 18 SCC 374; second bail application dismissed 11.03.2025; Justice Praveer Bhatnagar.

What did the court decide?

Applying the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal (supra), mere long incarceration or delay in trial cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused-petitioner; the Section 37 NDPS Act conditions prevail. ¶22

Anil Chouhan S/O Pritam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:10982]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 1999/2025

¶4

Anil Chouhan S/o Pritam Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nirmal Nagar Dungari, Police Station Dungari, District Ludhiyana, Punjab.

¶5

(At Present Confined In The District Jail, Kota).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶12

11/03/2025

¶13

The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 62/2023 registered at Police Station Mandana, District Kota (Rural) for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The accused petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2023 and the trial of the case will take considerable time. There is a long list of prosecution witnesses out of which only five witnesses have been examined till now. Therefore, in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Ravinder Taksali Vs. The Union of India Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8585/2024, Babor Ali Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal Criminal Appeal No. 3349/2024 and Tajmul SK Vs. The State of

[2025:RJ-JP:10982]

[CRLMB-1999/2025]

(2 of 3)

west Bengal Criminal Appeal No. 3047/2024, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the second bail application and submitted that petitioner’s first bail application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 11.03.2024, considering the conditions enshrined under Section 37 of NDPS Act. Admittedly from the petitioner's possession commercial quantity of poppystraw was effected. The maximum punishment provided under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act for transporting the contraband articles is imprisonment upto 20 years.

¶20

Learned Apex Court in the case of NCB Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, (2022) 18 SCC 374 categorically held that mere delay in trial cannot be a ground to dilute the conditions enshrined under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore considering the above facts the instant second bail application of accused-petitioner be dismissed.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶22

The first bail application of accused-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2024 by this court, considering the commercial quantity of contraband articles recovered from the petitioner’s possession in vehicle bearing No. PB-10-HU-4239. It is alleged against the petitioner that he alongwith the other co-accused was transporting commercial quantity of 104.300KG of poppystraw in the aforesaid car. Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Mohit Aggarwal (Supra) has categorically held that mere long incarceration or delay in trial cannot be a ground to grant bail to the accused petitioner.

[2025:RJ-JP:10982]

[CRLMB-1999/2025]

(3 of 3)

Therefore, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, instant second bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J