Dismissed

Lokesh Poonia S/O Amilal Poonia v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2026CRLMB/1511/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a bail application filed under BNS 2023 against an accused charged under NDPS Act. The court held that Section 37 of NDPS Act was not satisfied due to the seriousness of allegations and prima facie evidence of complicity.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in custody.

Lokesh Poonia S/O Amilal Poonia Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal 2^nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1511/2026

¶4

Lokesh Poonia S/o Amilal Poonia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Thelasar, Police Station Ratan Nagar, District Churu. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dudu, District Dudu).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mangal Sing Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶8

Order

¶9

03/02/2026

¶10

These bail application under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicant-accused Lokesh Punia S/o Amilal Punia seeking bail in respect of 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

[CRLMB-1511/2026]

(2 of 6)

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is having no link with any of the accused and no recovery was effected from his possession. He further submits that neither petitioner has visited the place of incident nor he was traced or intercepted from any place. He further submits that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused only with aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. He further submits that initially maternal uncle of petitioner was named as a person travelling in a car but instead of taking action against him, police has named present petition as the accused is involved in the incident. He also referred the evidence and the material collected during investigation and submits that nothing is on record to show that petitioner has hatched a conspiracy. He further referred the proceedings drawn by police and submitted that the police has not complied the mandatory provision under the NDPS Act before effecting any action against the petitioner. At last, he submitted that all other accused were released on bail and petitioner is in custody since his arrest.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

[CRLMB-1511/2026]

(3 of 6)

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 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. 7. This Court has allowed bail application of Irfan Khan on 19.09.2025 but dismissed the bail application of Lokesh Punia. The bail application of other accused Shankar was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 15.03.2021. The

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

[CRLMB-1511/2026]

(4 of 6)

rejection order dated 20.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dudu Dist. Jaipur indicated that one more FIR No.109/2021 dated 31.08.2021 under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act was registered at P.S. Sadar, Churu against the present petitioner.

¶27

While rejecting the bail application on 19.09.2025, we have observed as under:

¶28

“11. 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 Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15.03.2021 as recovered quantity from him was less then commercial.

¶29

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 followed while considering

(5 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

[CRLMB-1511/2026]

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.

¶34

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

¶35

The bail application filed by the petitioneraccused 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.”

¶36

Neither there is any change of circumstance nor there is any evidence to record satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:5123]

[CRLMB-1511/2026]

Act. The petitioner is continuously involved in second criminal case of identical nature.

¶41

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

¶42

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶43

Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Lokesh Punia S/o Amilal Punia is hereby dismissed.

¶44

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶45

PREETI VALECHA /03

Lokesh Poonia S/O Amilal Poonia v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Poonia S/O Amilal Poonia v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boby Mehra S/O Bhojraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh Prajapat S/O Shri Laxman Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Verma Son of Shri Amar Singh Verma Vs Rajasthan High Court

Shahrukh S/O Nafees Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijaylata Sharma D/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mamraj Vs State of Raj and Ors.