[2025:RJ-JP:36988] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 10581/2025 Sunil Gupta S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chuli Gate No. 2, Near School, Gangapur City, Police Station Gangapurcity, Distt. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) At Present House No. 135, Shankar Dham Colony, Near Kalyan Marriage Garden, Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur. (At Present At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma with Ms. Mamta Agarwal Ms. Pankaj Solanki Mr. Pawan Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/09/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.284/2022 registered at Police Station Brahampuri, District Jaipur City (North) (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first and second bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by co-ordinate bench of this court. [2025:RJ-JP:36988] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10581/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. As per the prosecution case, 6600 Alprazolam Tablets weighing 818.04 grams have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that false case under the NDPS Act has been foisted upon the petitioner. Counsel submits that as per report dated 11.09.2025, four witnesses are yet to be examined thus, trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2022 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about three years. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He has also placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court in which period of incarceration has been considered relevant for grant of bail:- 1. Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022 2. Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh : Crimial Appeal No.668/2020 3. Tapan Das vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021 4. Ghanshyam Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019 5. Nadeem vs State of UP (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022 6. Suresh Kumar vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.16118/2022, decided on 04.01.2023) [2025:RJ-JP:36988] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10581/2025] 7. Govind vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.426/2023, decided on 17.02.2023) He submits that in all these cases, bail was granted only on the ground of period of incarceration. He also relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raju Ram vs State of Bihar reported in (2023) 1 Supreme 670 wherein it has been held that on the basis of period of incarceration, bail can be granted by relaxing the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. 6. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36988] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10581/2025] investigation. 7. As per record, the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2022 and thus, he has suffered incarceration of about three years till date. It also appears from the record that four witnesses are yet to be examined and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion thus, fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being violated. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to different accused persons by considering the period of incarceration of about two years or more. 8. 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 fact that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application. 9. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Sunil Gupta S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta 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. [2025:RJ-JP:36988] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10581/2025] 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 14. Learned trial court is directed to verify the fact that whether any other case under the NDPS Act is registered against the petitioner. Apart from the present case, if any other case under the NDPS Act is found against the petitioner, trial Court is directed not to accept the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /126