[2025:RJ-JP:14981] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3931/2025 Vijay Gurjar S/o Shri Bhawarlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gurjarda, P.s. Yd. Nagar, District Mandsor (M.p.) At Present In Central Jail Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/04/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.68/2024 registered at Police Station Government Railway Police (Ajmer), District Ajmer (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that initially, it was alleged by the prosecution that petitioner was found in possession of 355gms of methamphetamine and mephedrone which was kept in two packets weighing 200gms and 155gms, respectively. It is submitted that two samples from each packet were drawn and they were marked as C & F and same were sent to the FSL for analysis. Counsel submits that it was opined by the [2025:RJ-JP:14981] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3931/2025] Analyst in the FSL report that sample packed in the packet marked C was found to contain diacetylmorphine (Heroin) and sample packed in the packet marked F was found to contain Brucine, Olanzapine and Paracetamol. Counsel submits that presence of methamphetamine and mephedrone could not be detected in both the samples. In these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that 155 gms of diacetylmorphine (Heroin) which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner is admittedly below the commercial quantity. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, so also considering the FSL report available on record, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Vijay Gurjar S/o Shri Bhawarlal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the [2025:RJ-JP:14981] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3931/2025] 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 he 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in second week of every month in the concerned police station till conclusion of the trial. 8. 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 him by this Court. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. The observations made herein above 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 LALIT MOHAN /243