[2025:RJ-JP:30824] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10108/2025 Maniram S/o Shri Sitaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jinsi Ka Pura, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.129/2025 registered at Police Station Karauli, District Karauli for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that co-accused of this case, who was found in possession of contraband, has already been granted benefit of bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused person, who was found in possession of the alleged contraband. He contends that [2025:RJ-JP:30824] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10108/2025] so far, out of seven other cases under the NDPS Act, he has been acquitted in two cases. He further contends that he was in confinement in another case at the time of alleged recovery. He argues that charge-sheet has already been filed 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. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as ten other cases have been registered against him, out of which seven cases are under the NDPS Act. He fairly concedes that in two cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 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 parties, especially the fact that co-accused of this case, who was found in possession of contraband, has been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner; charge-sheet has been filed 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. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Maniram S/o Shri Sitaram 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:30824] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10108/2025] 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. 7. 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. 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. 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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/S-457