[2025:RJ-JP:39600] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10492/2025 Rajendra Kumar S/o Omprakash, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Rajpur, Police Station Balara, District Sikar. (Presently Confined In Central Jaipur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala, Adv., with Mr. Sunil Nehra, Adv., Mr. Sushil Mangawa, Adv., & Ms. Sarita Kumari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/09/2025 1. This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.123/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the court concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 25.11.2024, first bail application (No.5979/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer. Now, both these witnesses have been [2025:RJ-JP:39600] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10492/2025] examined at trial and thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the recovery has been allegedly effected on 11.04.2024 whereas inventory was prepared on 28.05.2024. Further, samples were also not sent to FSL immediately and they were sent on 14.06.2024. He contends that petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He does not have any criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act. He places reliance on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order passed on 13.08.2025 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He argues that looking to the huge quantity of contraband recovered in the present case, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused [2025:RJ-JP:39600] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10492/2025] may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 7. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the fact that as per the record, there is a delay of nearly fifty days in preparing inventory from the date of alleged recovery and samples were not sent to FSL immediately; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Omprakash 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. 9. 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 once in three months in the concerned police station. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording [2025:RJ-JP:39600] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10492/2025] 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. 11. 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. 11. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations 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 Sudhir Asopa/37