[2025:RJ-JP:2073] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13/2025 1. Bhupendra Puniya @ Bhura S/o Premaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Vinayakpura Bhavad, Tehsil Bavadi, Police Station Karvad, District Jodhpur East. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). 2. Shyamlal Budiya S/o Shri Janvataram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dhani Vishnoian, Khejadali Kalan, Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur East. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chain Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2024 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar (Ajmer), District Ajmer for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Charge-sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners and they have been made accused solely on the basis of information furnished by [2025:RJ-JP:2073] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13/2025] co-accused who was found in possession of contraband under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that investigation agency failed to collect any evidence/call details with regard to the fact that petitioners were in contact with accused Shera Ram in any manner who was apprehended by the police at the spot with contraband. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. Learned counsel contends that petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they are in custody since 26.06.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed, trial will take time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. He submits that huge contraband in commercial quantity has been recovered in this matter and thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted. 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 petitioners, especially the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners; no call details have been collected by investigation agency, they are in custody since 26.06.2024; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits/demerits of the case, I am of the considered [2025:RJ-JP:2073] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13/2025] view that restriction provided under Section 37 of NDPS Act do not apply in the instant case. Accordingly, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Bhupendra Puniya @ Bhura S/o Premaram, (2) Shyamlal Budiya S/o Shri Janvataram, shall be released on bail provided they furnish 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 they 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-petitioners shall mark their presence in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 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 the petitioners by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /305