[2025:RJ-JP:32685] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 8564/2025 Bablu Singh @ Bhoru S/o Shri Tanwar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Jerthi, Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, SHO, I.O, P.S. Jhotwara, Jaipur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 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.27/2024 registered at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/18 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 18.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Investigating Officer. Now, Investigating Officer of this case has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:32685] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8564/2025] Counsel submits that admittedly, petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband and same was recovered from the vehicle which was found in an abandoned condition. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of Investigating Officer that petitioner has been booked in this case to save the actual culprit, who is owner of the vehicle. Counsel submits that till date, only 2 witnesses have been examined out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2024 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about 17 months. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. 4. Investigating Officer of this case is present in person. Under his instructions, learned State counsel submits that commercial quantity of contraband (Poppy Husk) has been recovered in this matter therefore, considering the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. He further submits that eight other cases have been registered against the petitioner however, fairly concedes that none of the case has been registered under the NDPS Act. [2025:RJ-JP:32685] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8564/2025] 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it 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 petitioner, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that petitioner was not found at the place of recovery, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature and trial will take considerable 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 proper to allow this second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Bablu Singh @ Bhoru S/o Shri Tanwar Singh, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of [2025:RJ-JP:32685] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8564/2025] 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 and he shall mark his presence in the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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 him by this Court. 13. The observations made hereinabove are 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 CHARU SONI /100