[2025:RJ-JP:32313] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 597/2025 Hafij S/o Khurshid Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Karhed, Police Station Nageena, District Nuh Mewat, Haryana. (At Present The Accused In Judicial Custody At Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Azad Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/08/2025 1. The instant bail application have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.325/2023 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that from perusal of the seizure memo, it appears that that leaves and seeds type of substance was allegedly recovered which does not fall within a definition of Ganja defines under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and trial will take considerable time [2025:RJ-JP:32313] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-597/2025] in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 30.07.2023 as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than two years. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 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 observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru (supra) and Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra), as also considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the [2025:RJ-JP:32313] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-597/2025] case, I deem it proper to allow this bail application. 6. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Hafij S/o Khurshid Ahmed 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 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:32313] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-597/2025] 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 /50