[2025:RJ-JP:34413] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.9075/2025 Deepak S/o Dariya Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Lotiya, Police Station Surajgarh, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Petitioner In District Jail Khetari, Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shazadi Bano, Adv. for Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/08/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.154/2023, registered at Police Station Pacherikala, District Jhunjhunu, for the offence(s) under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 23.04.2024 and thereafter statements of only two witnesses have been recorded. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 19.09.2023 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. It is further contended that the proceedings under Section 52-A were not [2025:RJ-JP:34413] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9075/2025] conducted properly and further the concerned Seizure Officer did not draw the samples from the seized packets, rather placed all of them at one place and mixed them with one another before drawing the samples which is against the procedure laid down under Section 52-A of the NDPS, therefore, on the above ground, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that from the joint possession of the petitioner and the co-accused, commercial quantity of 31 Kg 500 grams of cannabis was recovered. In the F.S.L. report, the substance was found to be ‘ganja’ as defined under Section 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act. It is also contended that even if it is presumed that the proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were not conducted properly still the omission of such procedure does not itself vitiate the recovery. The quantity recovered from the possession of the petitioner falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply. The petitioner was not able to prove the fact that he was not involved in transporting the commercial quantity of cannabis, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that the recovery of commercial quantity of ‘ganja’ was effected from the possession of the accused- petitioner and the other co-accused, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:34413] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9075/2025] 6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-7