[2025:RJ-JP:31573] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5292/2025 Gajendra S/o Dhanroop, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kachanariya Kalan, Police Station Kharnavda Shahji, District Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/08/2025 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.234/2024 registered at Police Station Sangod, District Kota Rural for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that false recovery of poppy husk (94.795 kgs) has been shown from the petitioner. He argues that other co-accused person namely Nawal Kishore Lavvanshi has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against [2025:RJ-JP:31573] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-5292/2025] the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that petitioner is in custody since 27.08.2024 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. He submits that huge quantity of contraband poppy husk (94.795 kgs) has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner which comes within the definition of commercial quantity. Thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted. 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, especially the fact that matter pertains to the commercial quantity and petitioner has been found in possession of the contraband and looking to the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer of this case. 7. The observations made hereinabove is 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 MADAN/104