[2025:RJ-JP:33943] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 7593/2025 Lokesh S/o Shree Hemraj, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. - 31, Karni Sthal Colony, 200 Feet Bypass, Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yunus Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 26/08/2025 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 57/2022 2. Concerned Police Station G.R.P. Jaipur 3. District Ajmer 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any -- 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the [2025:RJ-JP:33943] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7593/2025] accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner was not the person from whom the contraband was recovered; rather, he was made the accused on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Lokesh Kumawat. Co- accused Lokesh Kumawat has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2022, whereafter he remained on bail for a considerable period. On the date fixed for hearing, i.e., 09.02.2024, he had to appear before the trial Court; however, his lawyer did not move any application for his exemption. Therefore, the bail bonds were forfeited. Co- accused is ready to furnish fresh bail bonds and assures that he shall not impede the course of trial in future. Though the co-accused could be re-apprehended after one year and three months, and in the meantime he was found determined in one another case, but the facts remain that in the present case, the principal accused is on bail, and no incriminating material was recovered from the present applicant. Further, taking into account the assurance that he would maintain good behaviour throughout the course of the trial and shall always make himself available on each and every date of [2025:RJ-JP:33943] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7593/2025] hearing, either personally or through his counsel. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. 7. The applicant is directed to mark his attendance before the Police Station G.R.P., District Ajmer, once in every two months, until the culmination of the trial. (FARJAND ALI),J Samvedana/10