[2025:RJ-JP:31608] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 10182/2025 Shekhar Vishnoi S/o Manaram, R/o Choharo Ki Dhani Kalyanpur Barmer, (Raj.) (Petitioner Is In Sub Jail Beawar) ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan, Adv. For State : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 13/08/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.429/2022, registered at Police Station Beawar, Sadar, District Ajmer for the offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on 24.07.2024. Thereafter, a co-accused has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Gopal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan decided by Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.482/2025, wherein after considering the custody period of two years, the accused was [2025:RJ-JP:31608] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10182/2025] granted bail. Howsoever, the contents of the Hon'ble Apex Court order/judgment does not reveal the detailed facts. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the instant bail application. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has noted that the commercial quantity which is recovered from the accused-applicant is 185 kgs, which is three times the specified quantity i.e., 50 kgs; that Hon'ble Supreme Court in its dictum (2023) SCC OnLine SC 346 titled as Union of India Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh; 2023 SCC Online SC 352 titled as Mohammad Hussain @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and (2020) 12 SCC 122 titled as State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. Rajesh and Ors. has categorically observed that in cases of recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substance, prior to granting the benefit of bail, the Courts must satisfy itself that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offense and that an offense of akin nature shall not be committed in future or when the accused- applicant is on bail. 7. In view of the aforementioned, taking note of the fact that there are no material changes ever-since the dismissal order of the first bail application of the accused-applicant and this Court being not satisfied with the contentions tendered by the petitioner, deems it apposite to dismiss the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /169