[2025:RJ-JP:19167] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6002/2025 Vishnu Rai S/o Shri Phoni Rai, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kaalpani, Police Station Pundibadi, District Cooch Bihar, West Bengal. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/05/2025 1. The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.328/2024 registered at Police Station Vidhayak Puri, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.02.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after filing result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the prosecution case, alleged contraband ‘Ganja’ being 20.800 Kg was recovered from an Auto in which petitioner was also present. It is [2025:RJ-JP:19167] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6002/2025] submitted that alleged contraband was weighed along with packing material therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out that if the contraband is weighed without packing material, the same would fall in the category of below commercial quantity. Learned counsel further submits that green leafy substance was recovered, which is evident from the seizure memo and leafy substance does not fall under the definition of ‘Ganja’. It is submitted that even if entire prosecution story is accepted, it is a case of recovery of contraband which is marginally above the commercial quantity. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2024 and 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. 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; material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet, so also considering the fact that alleged recovered contraband is marginally above the commercial quantity, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to period of custody, 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 – Vishnu Rai S/o Shri Phoni [2025:RJ-JP:19167] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6002/2025] Rai 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 till conclusion of trial in the concerned police station. 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /80