[2025:RJ-JP:18763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5585/2025 Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Motilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khidkhindi Police Station Todabhim District Karauli (Raj) At Present Service Nursing Officer Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital Secotr 9 Bhilai Durg Chattisgarh Care Of Risali Sector 268B Police Station Newai District Durg(Chattisgarh) (At Present Confined Central Jail Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/05/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.381/2024 registered at Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.03.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20, 8/29 & 8/25 of NDPS Act, thus this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:18763] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5585/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that co-accused person who was found in possession of contraband disclosed that contraband was loaded by the petitioner and vehicle in question was in exclusive control of the petitioner as petitioner’s brother is registered owner of the said vehicle. It is submitted that vehicle in question was sent by the petitioner through driver who is the co- accused of this case to drop the said vehicle at his parental house in District Karauli. It is submitted that without any knowledge of the petitioner contraband was loaded by the co-accused person. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is a practising doctor in the State of Chhattisgarh and he is in custody since 25.10.2024. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that not only contraband but mobile phone and credit card belonging to the petitioner were also recovered from the possession of the co- accused person which shows that petitioner is fully involved in the drug trafficking. 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 both the [2025:RJ-JP:18763] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5585/2025] parties, material made available on record in the form of charge- sheet, so also considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is a practising doctor in the State of Chhattisgarh, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner 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 the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Motilal, 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 in second 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 petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police [2025:RJ-JP:18763] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5585/2025] station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any 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. 11. The observations made herein above 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 GAUTAM JAIN /471