[2025:RJ-JP:29242] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8620/2025 Imran S/o Shri Abdul Raseed, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Truck Union Ke Pass, Rajeev Colony, Gangapur City, Police Station Udai Mod, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Dis- trict Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/07 /2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.143/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has made an accused solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co-accused Charan Singh, from whom, contraband smack (7.98 gm) has been allegedly recovered. Counsel submits that the said co-accused has already been [2025:RJ-JP:29242] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8620/2025] granted benefit of bail by the trial Court. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 12 other cases including one under the NDPS Act, have been registered against him. 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 petitioner, especially considering the fact that as per the prosecution case, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner; co-accused has been granted benefit of bail as also looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Imran S/o Shri Abdul Raseed, 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve [2025:RJ-JP:29242] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8620/2025] 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. 8. 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. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 10. 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. 11. The observations made hereinabove is only for the 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 pcg/343