[2025:RJ-JP:1062] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 112/2025 Mohanram S/o Virmaram, R/o Vishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Modathali, Dhava, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia PP with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 08/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant is arrested in connection with FIR No. 429/2022 registered at Police Station Beawar Sadar District Ajmer for the Offence(s) under Sections 8/29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is the sole bread earner of the family and is aged approximately 37 years, and has no criminal antecedents registered against him. It is further submitted that the present application is filed due to the change in circumstances i.e. filing of the charge sheet, after rejection of the first bail application dated 03.09.2024. Moreover, no effective recovery is made from the applicant. Lastly, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No. [2025:RJ-JP:1062] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-112/2025] 16642/2023 titled as Shince Babu vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the instant bail application is ought to be rejected considering the commercial quantity recovered from the applicant. It is further submitted that the first bail application was rejected after noting the justified reasons and relying upon judgment of Apex Court, by way of a speaking order. Further, it is submitted that the charge sheet has affirmed the allegations leveled against the applicant qua the offence being committed under the provisions of NDPS Act and Section 420, 120B and allied provisions of IPC. Lastly, it is submitted that the fast tag recovered from the car was registered under the name of applicant. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that a recovery of commercial quantity of NDPS substance is made from the applicant; that the fast tag of the vehicle in question is registered under the name of the applicant; that the charge-sheet has affirmed the allegations leveled against the accused-applicant and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon the merits/demerits, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant bail application. 6. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J ANIL SHARMA /30