[2025:RJ-JP:38248] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 457/2025 Sheruddin S/o Jumma Khan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kherli Chandrawat, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Union Of India, Through Pp (Ncb) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 This is second bail application under Section 483 BNSS, filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with the FIR No.VIII(IO)05/NCB/JZU/2022 registered at Police Station NCB, Jodhpur for offences under Sections 8/20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Vide order dated 05.04.2024, first bail application (No.2785/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is totally innocent. He argues that at the time of dismissing first bail application, liberty was given to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of seizure [2025:RJ-JP:38248] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-457/2025] officer. It is contended that there is no substantial progress in trial and trial is going on at snail’s pace, which is evident from the fact that only after issuance of warrant of arrest, presence of Seizure Officer was secured before the trial court and his testimony has been recorded. The petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2022 and as such, he has been behind the bars for more than three years and six months whereas trial will take long time in its conclusion. Besides this, it is argued that bail application of the co-accused Lalit Singh has also been accepted by this Court and therefore, his bail application also deserves acceptance. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application. He contends that though there is some delay in trial but prosecution alone cannot be held liable for such delay. The accused petitioner is also equally responsible for the delay which is evident from the fact that only on the point of arguments on charge, the accused petitioner took several adjournments. The challan was filed on 24.08.2022 in the court concerned whereas charge was framed on 18.05.2024. He argues that first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. After rejection of the first bail application, there occurred no substantial change in circumstance. The material available on record though indicates that there is no [2025:RJ-JP:38248] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-457/2025] much progress in trial but such delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution alone. In these circumstances, looking to the huge quantity of contraband allegedly recovered in the instant case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to accept the instant bail application, filed on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. However, looking to the custody period of the accused petitioner, and the slow progress of trial, the trial court is expected to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within six months. The petitioner may renew the prayer for bail if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid time period. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir Asopa/56