[2025:RJ-JP:23801] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 6595/2025 Lala Ram S/o Shri Devi Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Doli Kalan, Tehsil Pachpadra, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Barmer (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/06/2025 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.221/2023 registered at Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Section 482 of IPC and Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:23801] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6595/2025] Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of Seizure Officer that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since 13.05.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than 25 months. Learned counsel contends that while seizing the contraband, officer failed to associate the independent witnesses of locality. It is contended that seizure was made in this case on 13.05.2023 and samples were drawn in the presence of Jurisdictional Magistrate on 30.06.2023. It is argued that samples were deposited in the FSL on 12.09.2023 after delay of more than two months for which no proper explanation is available on record. It is argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. It is argued that in other case registered under the NDPS Act against the petitioner, recovery of 140 gm opium has been made which is admittedly less than commercial quantity. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. [2025:RJ-JP:23801] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6595/2025] 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, as also considering the fact that samples drawn by Jurisdictional Magistrate have been deposited in the FSL after delay of more than two months and further considering the period of custody which is almost more than 25 months and the observation made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), 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 - Lala Ram S/o Shri Devi Ram, 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 first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:23801] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6595/2025] 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. 11. The observation 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 CHARU SONI /71