[2025:RJ-JP:32714] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 9109/2025 Sanoj Meena S/o Shri Hodi Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Fali Ka Pura, P.s. Sadar Hindaun Presently R/o Maliyo Ka Pura, Riico Area, Gangapur, P.s. Udai Mode, Gangapur District Sawai Mad- hopur ( At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 1. The third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.06/2023 registered at Police Station Nai Mandi Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 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 The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 05.12.2023 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer. Thereafter, second bail application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner however, same was dismissed by this court vide order dated 20.11.2024. Now, this third bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:32714] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9109/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that while rejecting the second bail application of the petitioner, learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavour to conclude the trial on or before 30.06.2025. It is contended that said period has already expired but till date, trial has not been concluded. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him, out of which, four cases are under the NDPS Act. 5. At this stage, one more argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that ground of arrest was not furnished by the Investigating Agency therefore, there is gross violation of provisions of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. A report was called from the learned trial Court and according to the said report, twenty four witnesses have already been examined out of twenty seven cited prosecution witnesses till July, 2025 which shows that learned trial Court is making serious efforts to conclude the trial. It appears from the earlier order passed by this Court that commercial quantity of contraband (Smack) has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner [2025:RJ-JP:32714] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9109/2025] and four other cases under the NDPS Act have also been registered against him. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that commercial quantity of contraband (Smack) has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, so also the fact that four other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner and during currency of bail in those cases, another offence under the NDPS Act has been committed by him thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court in not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed. 10. It is expected from the learned Trial Court that unnecessary adjournments on casual grounds may not be given and proceedings would be conducted on day-to-day basis. Learned trial Court is further directed to fix responsibility of concerned SHO to ensure the presence of witnesses for recording their testimony before the learned trial Court. 11. 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 LALIT MOHAN /106