[2025:RJ-JP:22866] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5853/2025 Govind Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kherkheda, Police Station Javed, District Neemach, Madhya Pradesh (Presently The Petitioner Is Lodged In Central Jail Ajmer, Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Anil Joshi, C.O. RPS, Cyber Cell, Bundi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/05/2025 1. This 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.84/2022 registered at Police Station Dabi, District Bundi for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 12.09.2024 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed, thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:22866] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5853/2025] 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. Petitioner has been made accused solely in this case solely on the basis of information furnished by co-accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and same cannot be used against the petitioner as it is hit by Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. It is contended that the co-accused persons, namely, Prakash, Ashok Kumar Dhakar & Narayan Singh Hada, who gave information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act involving the petitioner with the alleged contraband, have already been granted bail by this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is argued that petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Under the instructions of Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him however, he fairly concedes that except information furnished by co-accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, no other evidence was collected by Investigation Agency. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:22866] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5853/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, especially considering the fact that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of information furnished by co-accused person under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, as also considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, aforementioned co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail 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 - Govind Singh S/o Devi Singh, 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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 first and third week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:22866] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5853/2025] 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 station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /39