[2025:RJ-JP:32786] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 6556/2025 Ratan Singh S/o Ramcharan Dhakad, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bhaisena, Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner who has been in custody since 20.01.2024 in connection with FIR No.10/2024 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 8, 15, 18 & 20 of the NDPS Act. Later on, the police has also filed charge-sheet in this matter before the learned court below. 2. The first bail application (No.13998/2024) was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording statement of the Seizure Officer. Statement of the said witness has been recorded, hence, this second bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that no [2025:RJ-JP:32786] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6556/2025] independent witness was associated with during search and seizure proceedings. He also contends that from the material available on record, it is clear that samples were not drawn properly and therefore entire recovery proceedings are vitiated. He submits that though separate samples were drawn from each sack but same were drawn after mixing the entire substance kept in it. Thus, the sample was drawn in violation of standing order issued by the NCB, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Netram v State of Rajasthan (2014 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents out of which, in two cases, petitioner has been acquitted and in one case, recovery of 105 gm Ganja has been made. The petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2024 and trial will take long time in its conclusion. He thus, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that looking to the quantity of recovered contraband, brigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies to the instant case and therefore, bail should not be granted. 5 I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perusal the material available on record. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32786] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6556/2025] is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and 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. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that it appears that samples were drawn from each sack after mixing the entire substance kept in it; the petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2024 i.e., more than one year and seven months and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion but without making any comments on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept the instant bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Ratan Singh S/o Ramcharan Dhakad, who has been in custody in connection with FIR No. 10/2024 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City shall be released on bail provided that he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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. 9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall [2025:RJ-JP:32786] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6556/2025] mark his presence in the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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. 13. The observations made hereinabove are 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 /90