[2025:RJ-JP:30230] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8629/2025 1. Iqbal S/o Ismail, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mewati Mohalla Agar Police Station Agar District Agar Malwa (M.P.) 2. Nitin S/o Parmendra, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Fulmalipura Mohalla Agar Police Station Agar District Agar Malwa (MP) (At Present Confined In Sub-District Jail, Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that bail application of the accused-petitioner No.2- Nitin S/o Parmendra has already been presented by other counsel. Therefore, he seeks withdrawal of this bail application qua accused-petitioner No.2 i.e. Nitin S/o Parmendra. 2. Permission sought for is granted. 3. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn qua accused-petitioner No.2 i.e. Nitin S/o Parmendra. 4. So far as accused-petitioner No.1 concerned, he has preferred the instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS [2025:RJ-JP:30230] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8629/2025] as he has been arrested in connection with FIR No.145/2025 registered at Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband smack (11.50 gms) is below commercial quantity. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that alleged recovered contraband smack is below commercial quantity; absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 9. This bail application is accordingly partly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner No.1- Iqbal S/o Ismail 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30230] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8629/2025] 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. 10. 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 first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. 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 MADAN/222