[2025:RJ-JP:23889] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 7303/2025 Bhajan Son Of Hanuman, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Nayagaon Jatan, Kantoli, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) ( At Present In District Jail Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyma Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhkar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/06/2025 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.293/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 06.03.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the Seizure Officer. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that allegedly, [2025:RJ-JP:23889] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7303/2025] contraband poppy husk weighing 75kgs & 309gms has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused namely- Khushiram & Udairam and same was being carried by them in a car. Counsel submits that aforesaid co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 and case of the present petitioner is also on same footing. Counsel submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied by the Seizure Officer while seizing the contraband. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases: (i) Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. The State of West Bangal (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4173/2022) decided on 04.08.2022; (ii) Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022) decided on 01.08.2022; (iii) Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.915/2023) decided on 28.03.2023 and (iv) Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5187/2021) decided on 10.11.2021. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by [2025:RJ-JP:23889] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7303/2025] learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in this matter 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. 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 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; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that co-accused persons namely- Khushiram & Udairam have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and case of the present petitioner is also on same footing, as also considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is [2025:RJ-JP:23889] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7303/2025] directed that accused-petitioner- Bhajan Son Of Hanuman 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. 9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail. 10. If breach of this condition 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 LALIT MOHAN /89