Dismissed¶26

Ashok Kumar S/O Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2025CRLMB/6639/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMB 6639/2025; Rajasthan HC Jaipur; Praveer Bhatnagar J; order dated 18/08/2025; bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. dismissed; Sections 8/15 and 37 N.D.P.S. Act; Section 52-A compliance held not mandatory, mere non-compliance does not vitiate seizure; mixed samples; FSL report absent from charge-sheet; commercial quantity of poppy straw 132 kg 400 g; FIR No.149/2024 PS Raisar Jaipur Rural; custody since 16.07.2024; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

The provisions relied upon by the petitioners for challenging the seizure process, the drawing of samples and non-compliance of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act are not mandatory in nature, and their mere non-compliance does not vitiate the entire seizure process. ¶21

Ashok Kumar S/O Munshiram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:32094]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6639/2025

¶4

Ashok Kumar S/o Munshiram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Taravali Police Station Guhla District Kethal District Haryana.

¶5

(At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj)

¶6

Vikram Singh S/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kangthali Police Station Siwan District Kethal Haryana (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

18/08/2025

¶15

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accusedpetitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.149/2024, registered at Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur (Rural), for the offence(s) under Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the entire procedure conducted by the Seizure Officer is against the settled principle of law as laid down under the provisions of NDPS Act. The Seizure Officer did not take the samples from each of the bags rather mixed the same with 5 others and drawn the samples. The Seizure Officer has also failed

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:32094]

[CRLMB-6639/2025]

to comply with the procedure enunciated under Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further contended that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners is incomplete as the FSL report is not submitted by the Police Officials. It is further argued that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 16.07.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding mixing of the samples, irregularity in compliance with Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act and non-submission of the FSL report along with the charge-sheet are mere irregularity and whether they impact the entire seizure process and result in failure of justice is a question to be decided at the stage of trial. It is alleged against the petitioners and the other co-accused that they jointly transported 132 kg and 400 grams of poppy straw in 15 bags in the Honda City Car bearing registration no. DL-5CE-9900. The quantity recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners is commercial quantity and considering the rigors provided under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the bail application of the accusedpetitioners may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

The provisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners for challenging the seizure process, drawing of the samples and non compliance of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act are not mandatory in nature and mere non-compliance of the same, does not vitiate the entire seizure process, therefore, considering

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:32094]

¶23

[CRLMB-6639/2025]

¶24

the fact that the quantity recovered from the petitioners possession is of commercial quantity and there is no reasonable ground for the Court at this stage to believe that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged crime and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed by the accusedpetitioners are hereby dismissed.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-4

Ashok Kumar S/O Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar S/O Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Mata Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Kumar Jhalani Son of Shri Babulal Jhalani Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bachchusingh S/O Ratanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Golu S/O Laxminarayan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Devvrat Sangwan S/O Shri Narendra Sangwan Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivram S/O Madho Singh Vs State of Rajasthan