Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmb / 28937U / 2025Pritpal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:24310) on 19 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:24310]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13879/2025
Pritpal Singh S/o Shri Teja Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Village
11 F Majhi Wala Tehsil Shrikaranpur District Sriganganagar
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jayant Garg
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Bhanwar Lal, Addt. S.P., Sri
Ganganagar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order 19/05/2026
1. The applicant has filed the present bail application, being aggrieved against the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.216/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is behind the bars pursuant to F.I.R. No.82/2025 registered at Police Station Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 .
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no connecting evidence to link the applicant with the alleged offence and, except for disclosure statements made by the applicant and co-accused Vijay Singh @ Kaptan, there is no material connecting the applicant with the offence. He further submits that as far as (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:21:13 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:21:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24310] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13879/2025] the statement of co-accused is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon for the purpose of implicating the applicant. He further submits that after the recovery of the drone carrying the contraband, i.e., allegedly 500 grams of heroin, the investigation was started and subsequently, without there being any link, the applicant has been implicated in this case merely on the ground that he is a resident of the area in question. He submits that the rigour of Section 37 of the Act of NDPS Act, 1985 would not apply to the case of the applicant. To buttress his argument that the statement of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for implicating the applicant, learned counsel relies upon the orders passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2 nd Bail Application No.3121/2026 (Khushpreet Singh vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 24.03.2026 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2 nd Bail Application No.13220/2025 (Gagandeep Singh Alias Toti vs. State) and another connected matter decided on 18.02.2026.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that in the present case, a drone from Pakistan was used to dispatch heroin into India in the bordering area itself where the applicant resides. He further submits that the applicant was arrested on 17.08.2025 and thereafter recovery of mobile was effected. The applicant thereafter had disclosed information under Section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam on 18.08.2025, whereby he himself had taken the investigating officer to the site in question from where they had asked the delivery of the drug in question qua which a map has been prepared, which fortifies the fact that the site in question was same from where the drug was recovered. Identical disclosure (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:21:13 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:21:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24310] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13879/2025] statements were given by co-accused Vijay Singh @ Kaptan. The police after investigation had filed the charge-sheet against the applicant along with Vijay Singh @ Kaptan and the case has been kept pending under Section 193(9) of the BNSS as against accused Pawandeep Singh and Mukesh Kumar @ Foji, who could not be apprehended and were the main culprits in hatching the conspiracy and smuggling the narcotic substance via route of Pakistan. He, therefore, submits that there is ample evidence available on record and considering the nature of offence as well as rigour of 37 of the Act of NDPS Act, 1985, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. This Court has considered the arguments raised by both the sides as well as perused the charge-sheet.
6. The facts of the case are that on 02.04.2025, based upon an information given by the officers of the BSF, the police officers reached the site and seized the drone along with the narcotic substance on the early morning of 03.04.2025. Thereafter, the narcotic substance as well as the drone was sent for analysis and the requisite documentation was done. Post receiving the information from sources, the police started investigation and during the course of investigation, the applicant along with Vijay Singh @ Kaptan were found involved in the case in hand. They were apprehended and gave the disclosure statement based upon which, the site in question where the trade was supposed to be done and the location of the place where the contraband was to be dropped through drone, was disclosed. The memo in this regard was prepared. A comprehensive analysis along with the flight path of drone was prepared, which further fortifies the fact that the (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:21:13 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:21:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24310] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13879/2025] drone was sent from Pakistan and reached at the same location in question.
7. Post investigation, the police found that the main accused was Pawandeep Singh, who was a resident of the nearby area and settled in Malaysia and was involved in the illegal smuggling of drug from Pakistan with the aid of co-accused Vijay Singh @ Kaptan and Mukesh Kumar @ Foji. During the course of investigation, it was found that the present applicant was maternal uncle of Vijay Singh and with his aid, the conspiracy was hatched at his place on 02.04.2025. The applicant along with Vijay Singh went to the site in question for recovering the drug, however, they could not find it and, in the meanwhile, the officers of the Border Security Force started searching the area. The applicant along with Vijay Singh apprehending arrest, ran away from the site in question and later on got apprehended by the investigating officer. The investigating officer was summoned for his personal presence by this Court who fortified the fact of the trade being undertaken by the applicant along with co-accused and corroborated the evidence available on record connecting the applicant with the trade in question, more particularly, the disclosure statement of applicant and Vijay Singh @ Kaptan.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that there is ample evidence available on record to implicate the applicant with the alleged heinous crime and in view of the bar under Section 37 of the Act of NDPS Act, 1985, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail as the alleged recovery of narcotic substance is of commercial quantity and the applicant has not been able to make out any case to show that there are reasonable grounds for (Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:21:13 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:21:33 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:24310] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13879/2025] believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The vigour of Section 37 of the Act of NDPS Act, 1985 would apply to the case in hand and it is not a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. It is not even a case of prolonged incarceration as the applicant has been arrested on 17.08.2025 only.
9. As far as the bail orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, needless to emphasise that those orders have been passed in light of the facts of that particular case and not in relation to co-accused in the same case. As far as the order passed in the Khushpreet Singh (supra) is concerned, one of the consideration for granting bail by this Court was that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail. As far as order passed in the case of Gagandeep Singh (supra) is concerned, no specific reasons have been assigned. The said orders granting bail cannot be treated as precedents and are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.
10. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail and finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, has not committed any error in denying bail to the applicant under Section 483 B.N.S.S.
11. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J 3-Love/-
(Uploaded on 21/05/2026 at 12:21:13 PM) (Downloaded on 21/05/2026 at 10:21:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)