[2025:RJ-JP:36334] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 3598/2025 1. Mohammed Sharukh S/o Mohammed Farukh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 3rd Choupasani Road, Jodhpur City, Police Station Khanda Falsa, District Jodhpur (Raj.) 2. Mohammed Samer S/o Mohammed Farukh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 3rd Choupasani Road, Jodhpur City, Police Station Khanda Falsa, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Judicial Custody, Central Jail, Kota) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.137/2023 registered at Police Station Kanwas, District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act and Sections 420 and 465 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 26.11.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer of this case has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:36334] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3598/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no independent witness was associated during search and seizure proceedings. It is submitted that merely stating that nobody was ready to become witness in the search and seizure proceedings is not enough. Learned counsel contends that no notice was given to such person who refused to become witness to the seizure proceedings. It is contended that as per prosecution case, on 28.06.2023, the police party was on routine patrolling and vehicles were being checked by them. During checking at about 10:15 AM, the police party signaled a vehicle No.RJ 14 YC 0795 to stop but the driver of the said vehicle did not stop and tried to flee away after breaking barricades. However, the said vehicle met with an accident. There were two persons found in the car who disclosed their names as Mohd. Sameer and Mohd. Shahrukh, petitioners herein. It is contended that log book, maintained for use of vehicle in the police station, has not been placed on record which creates doubt on the prosecution story. Learned counsel argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. It is argued that petitioners are in custody since 28.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that looking to the huge quantity of the recovered contraband opium doda i.e., 235 Kgs., petitioners do not deserve benefit of bail. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:36334] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3598/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also considering the fact that no independent witness was associated during search and seizure proceedings; there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – (1) Mohammed Sharukh S/o Mohammed Farukh, and (2) Mohammed Samer S/o Mohammed Farukh, shall be released on bail provided, each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the [2025:RJ-JP:36334] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3598/2025] petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /70