NIRBHAY GAUR S/O SHRI SATYANARAYAN SHARMA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS
CRLMB/11327/2025 · 2025-09-17
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29553 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 29553 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:38619] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 11327/2025 Nirbhay Gaur S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Parasoli, Padasoli, District Dudu, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Of Narcotics, Through Standing Council. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl.P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 17/09/2025
1. This 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.02/2022 registered at Police Station Central Bureau Of Narcotics (CBN), Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 30.01.2025, first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer of this case has been examined during the course of trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that as per prosecution case, initially, two persons namely- Mahendra Pal Singh and Kuldeep Singh were arrested in this case and it was alleged that they were found in possession of contraband (tablets
[2025:RJ-JP:38619] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11327/2025] of tramadol, alprazolam etc.) and on the basis of their interrogation, one other person namely- Vinod Yadav was also arrested. During the course of interrogation, Vinod Yadav disclosed the fact that he purchased the drugs from petitioner and same was supplied by him to the aforesaid co-accused person namely- Mahendra Pal Singh. On the basis of aforesaid information, premises of the petitioner was searched and it was alleged that tablets of tramadol weighing 1958.468gm was recovered. He argues that other co-accused persons namely Mahendra Pal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Vinod Yadav have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 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.
[2025:RJ-JP:38619] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11327/2025]
4. Per contra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to him.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused persons of this case have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and petitioner has already suffered incarceration of about 15 months.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. 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 aforementioned co- accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the fact that petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2024, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application.
8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioner- Nirbhay Gaur S/o Shri Satyanarayan Sharma 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
[2025:RJ-JP:38619] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11327/2025] 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 in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.
10. 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.
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.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.
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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/75