[2025:RJ-JP:22845] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7264/2025 Smt. Mehnaj Begam W/o Shri Sirajuddin, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 71/h/10, Narkel Danga, Main Road, Narkel Danga, P.s. Narkel Danga, Kolkata (West Bengal) Pin -790011 (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma with Ms. Vishalakshi Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/05/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.82/2024 registered at Police Station Ajmer, District GRP Ajmer (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer.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. [2025:RJ-JP:22845] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7264/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the Seizure Officer that at the time of recovery, he was posted at Sub-Inspector and not holding the post of Station House Officer therefore, in view of notification issued by the State Government under Section 42 of NDPS Act, he was not competent to make search, seizure and arrest. Counsel submits that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is a female and in custody since 26.04.2024 and it has been alleged that she was found in possession of 25 kgs of Ganja which is marginally above the commercial quantity. Counsel relies upon the order passed on 10.01.2025 by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16671/2024 titled as Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit Versus State of Rajasthan wherein after considering the fact that accused has already suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 8 months facility of bail was granted to the accused. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to 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 parties, especially considering the observation made by [2025:RJ-JP:22845] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7264/2025] Hon’ble Apex Court in different cases wherein after considering the period of custody, benefit of bail has been extended to the accused- petitioners, as also considering the fact that petitioner is a female and does not have any criminal antecedents, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Smt. Mehnaj Begam W/o Shri Sirajuddin 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 she shall mark her presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 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 her by this Court. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark her presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in [2025:RJ-JP:22845] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7264/2025] this regard. 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 LALIT MOHAN /444