Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganpat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37966) on 22 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:37966]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8435/2025
Ganpat S/o Shri Peera Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Bhirmarlai, Tehsil Pachpadra, Dist. Barmer (Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/08/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 14/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Pindwara 3. District Sirohi 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 8/15 & 29 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 27.02.2025 order
2. The concise facts of the case are that on 11.01.2025, the
Police Station In-charge, along with his team, was on duty when a
a KIA car being registration No.RJ39-CA-6860 was noticed
approaching at a high speed. Upon being signaled to stop by the
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
police party, the said vehicle did not comply and instead
attempted to escape at high speed.
2.1. In response, the police force erected a barricade at the stand
and managed to surround the vehicle from all sides. The driver
was intercepted and, upon inquiry, disclosed his name as Ganpat
Lal. When questioned about his attempt to flee and his suspicious
conduct, Ganpat Lal stated that his friend, Bhanwarlal, was
following him in a Brezza car bearing registration number GJ18-
BP-5741, and that Bhanwarlal had instructed him to watch the
way of his vehicle. Meanwhile, the said Brezza car was also
observed approaching from the Udaipur side, being driven by
another individual which was thereafter, intercepted then and
there. Upon search of the Breeza Car, 96 Kg poppy husk in four
plastic bag was recovered from beneath the two rear seats as well
as the trunk of the vehicle. The petitioner was arrested on
11.01.2025 for his alleged role of facilitation of the crime. As a
matter of fact nothing incriminating was found in his possession.
2.2. After completing spot proceedings, a First Information Report
(FIR) No. 14/2025 was registered at Police Station Pindwara under
Sections 8/15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. His first bail application being SBCRLMB
No.3272/2025 was dismissed by this Court as not pressed by this
Court vide order dated 16.06.2025 with liberty to renew the
prayer after filing of the challan papers. Hence the instant bail
application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
5.1. Upon a scrupulous evaluation of the record and the entire
concatenation of circumstances, it emerges with clarity that the
petitioner has been arraigned not on the strength of substantive
and admissible material, but rather upon the frail pedestal of
suspicion. Such suspicion, howsoever grave, remains insufficient
in law to fasten culpability. The solitary allegation of the petitioner
“escorting” another vehicle is tenuous at best, being an inferential
assumption bereft of corroboration or probative worth. In such
circumstances, the petitioner justly merits sympathetic
consideration and the equitable indulgence of this Court for
exercise of its discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but of course
within limitation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
5.2. The fulcrum of the prosecution case is the assertion that co-
accused Bhanwarlal was apprehended while allegedly transporting
96 kilograms of contraband poppy husk in his vehicle, and that the
petitioner was purportedly “escorting” the said vehicle. It is,
however, an admitted fact that no contraband or any incriminating
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
material whatsoever was ever recovered from the personal
possession of the petitioner. His arrest thus stands predicated
exclusively on conjecture and assumption, without the scaffolding
of corroborative evidence to establish his complicity in the
transportation of narcotics.
5.3. It is a cardinal and entrenched principle of criminal
jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong or compelling,
cannot supplant the standard of legal proof demanded by law. In
the absence of any recovery or seizure from the petitioner, the
statutory presumptions envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the
NDPS Act, 1985, cannot be legitimately invoked against him. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Ors.
(2009) 12 SCC 161, and Mohd. Sahabuddin v. State of
Assam (2012) 13 SCC 491, has categorically enunciated that
where no contraband is recovered from an accused, mere
presence at or proximity to the scene cannot, in itself, constitute
proof of conscious possession or active involvement.
5.4. In the case at hand, apart from the bald assertion that the
petitioner was “escorting” the principal vehicle, the prosecution
has not adduced any supporting material of probative value.
Neither call detail records, nor surveillance inputs, nor the
testimony of independent witnesses, nor any admissible
documentary evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate
any prior meeting of minds, premeditated agreement, or
participation in the alleged transportation of narcotics. The
prosecution narrative, therefore, rests upon a fragile edifice of
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
speculation, wholly incapable of sustaining the rigours of the NDPS
Act.
5.5. At this juncture, it assumes significance that the allegation
against the petitioner, insofar as the use of the car is concerned,
rests exclusively upon the circumstance that his vehicle happened
to be intercepted in temporal and spatial proximity to the Breeza
Car from which contraband was actually recovered. Such a
circumstance, standing in isolation, is legally inadequate to fasten
criminal liability upon the petitioner. National highways are public
thoroughfares traversed daily by an unremitting stream of
vehicles; the mere fact that two vehicles were moving sequentially
or intercepted at a location within close proximity of time cannot,
by any stretch of inference, be equated with proof of collusion or
the role of “escort.” Acceptance of such a proposition would
amount to criminalising ordinary vehicular movement, thereby
exposing innocent commuters to unwarranted penal
consequences. Criminal liability, by its very nature, must rest upon
proof of conscious possession, active participation, or
demonstrable nexus with the illicit act; conjecture or geographical
proximity does not suffice.
5.6. Furthermore, in the absence of clear, cogent, and admissible
evidence establishing a direct nexus between the petitioner’s KIA
car and the other vehicle i.e. Breeza Car involved in transporation
of contraband, the prosecution’s suggestion that the car was
serving as an escort vehicle remains wholly speculative and
cannot, in law, be treated as a proved fact. Consequently, no
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
substantive link has been established between the occupants of
the intercepted car and the contraband seized from the other
vehicle.
5.7. It is equally pertinent that the driver of the vehicle laden with
contraband absconded from the spot, abandoning the vehicle,
whereas the petitioner, who happened to be present in the vicinity,
was apprehended on that singular ground. The jurisprudential
presumption of innocence cannot be displaced merely by his
coincidental presence. His mere presence, bereft of any
incriminating nexus, cannot be artificially equated with culpability
or conspiracy. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Chanda Ram
v. State of Rajasthan (2014 CriLJ 1091) has categorically held
that mere presence near the place of recovery, without any
corroborative evidence, is grossly inadequate to invoke the
draconian rigours of the NDPS Act.
5.8. Besides the above, a plea was raised on behalf of the
petitioner that he is an indigent person, a weaker person of the
Society and looking to his precarious, economic and social
background, he be released on bail. To verify the above fact, this
Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to procure the
report from the Police Station concerned. Learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted a factual Report dated 19.08.2025 and
perusal of which is manifestly reflects that the petitioner is a
poor person, having no criminal antecedents. A further letter
dated 16.08.2025 issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,
Bhimarlai, District Balotra indicates that the petitioner hails from a
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
family of modest means, dependent exclusively upon agriculture
and animal husbandry for sustenance, and enjoys an unblemished
reputation in his community. His social and economic vulnerability
further militates against the hypothesis of his involvement in an
organised narcotics operation.
5.9. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s continued
incarceration is not only unwarranted but constitutes an
unjustified incursion upon his fundamental right to personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The prosecution has
conspicuously failed to demonstrate any nexus between him and
the contraband, and his implication rests solely upon conjecture.
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restrict the grant
of bail, cannot be applied mechanically where there exists a
manifest absence of recovery, antecedents, or credible material
suggestive of complicity.
6. Thus, in the absence of recovery, in the absence of criminal
antecedents, and in the conspicuous absence of corroborative
material, the allegation of “escorting” stands wholly
unsubstantiated. The prosecution case against the petitioner is
predicated exclusively on suspicion, which, in law, cannot justify
the deprivation of liberty under a penal statute of such draconian
severity. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is
entitled to the indulgence of bail.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37966] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-8435/2025]
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
44-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 26/08/2025 at 07:31:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)