[2025:RJ-JP:28324] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6718/2025 Kamal Singh S/o Bacchu Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chilachond, Police Station Aangai, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma for Mr. Girraj Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/07/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 367/2024 registered at Police Station Badi District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 and 8/21 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co- accused person namely- Kohinoor Singh Parmar who was found in possession of the alleged contraband i.e., Ganja weighing 1.270kg and Smack weighing 30 mg. Counsel further submits that other [2025:RJ-JP:28324] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6718/2025] co-accused person namely- Dulheram has already been granted benefit of bail by this court vide order dated 11.12.2024. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further contends that petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him under the NDPS Act. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co-accused person and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Kamal Singh S/o Bacchu 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 [2025:RJ-JP:28324] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6718/2025] 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 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 pcg/150