[2025:RJ-JP:32785] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10635/2025 Kalu S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Prempuriya Binjari, Police Station Harnawadashahji, District Baran, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail, Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhim Singh Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.438/2024 registered at Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2025. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. 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 this [2025:RJ-JP:32785] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10635/2025] 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 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 16.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that three cases have been registered against him, out of which two cases are under the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that co-accused of this case, who was found in possession of contraband, has been granted benefit of bail by this Court; 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 this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Kalu S/o Kanhaiyalal 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:32785] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10635/2025] 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant second bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-312