[2025:RJ-JP:15261] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4779/2025 Kasim Khan @ Pav Son Of Shri Mehmud Hasan @ Munna, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No-829, Mohalla Imam Chowk, Bass Badanpura, Rajasthan At Present Residing At House No-19, Kanak Bagh Colony, Sadwa Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor Jaipur Rajasthan ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/04/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2025 registered at Police Station Bhatta Basti, District Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case simply on the basis [2025:RJ-JP:15261] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4779/2025] of interrogation of the co-accused person namely- Taufik @ Mama who was found in possession of contraband i.e., 22.10 gms of smack. Counsel submits that the said disclosure cannot be used against the petitioner in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1. Counsel submits that it is also evident from the record that petitioner is resident of Rajasthan while according to the statement of co-accused, it has been stated by him that he brought contraband from Kasim Khan who is resident of Madhya Pradesh. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as several other cases have been registered against him. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has made accused simply on the disclosure made by co-accused; alleged recovered contraband is less than commercial quantity; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as [2025:RJ-JP:15261] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4779/2025] 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 second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Kasim Khan @ Pav Son Of Shri Mehmud Hasan @ Munna shall be released on bail provided he furnishes 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 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. 8. 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 weekly in the concerned police station. 9. 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. 10. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /118