[2025:RJ-JP:39599] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 5311/2025 1. Omprakash S/o Ramkishan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Machhiwada, Police Station Machhiwada, District Ludhiyana (Punjab). 2. Hardeep Singh S/o Darshan Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Machhiwada, Police Station Machhiwada, District Ludhiyana (Punjab). (At Present In District Jail, Jhalawar). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/09/2025 1. This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2024 registered at Police Station Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for offences under Sections 8, 15, 29 and 25 of the NDPS Act has been filed in the court concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 13.12.2024, first bail application (No.15256/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to [2025:RJ-JP:39599] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5311/2025] renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer has been examined during the course of trial and thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioners. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the recovery has been allegedly effected on 10.04.2024 whereas inventory was prepared after four months on 16.08.2024. Further, samples were also not sent to FSL immediately and they were sent on 25.09.2024. He contends that petitioners are in custody since 10.04.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. He places reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed on 13.08.2025 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He argues that looking to the huge quantity of contraband recovered in the present case, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and [2025:RJ-JP:39599] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5311/2025] reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that as per the record, there is a delay of more than four months in preparing the inventory and samples were not sent to FSL immediately; the petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents and trial will take 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 proper to allow the second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Omprakash S/o Ramkishan, and 2. Hardeep Singh S/o Darshan Singh shall be released on bail provided, each of them 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 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. 9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall [2025:RJ-JP:39599] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5311/2025] mark their presence once in three months in the concerned police station. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the 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. 11. 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 copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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 Sudhir Asopa/31