[2025:RJ-JP:1533] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12649/2024 Jishan Khan S/o Irfan Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 86/5, Mohalla Goriyan, Bas Badanpura, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/01/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.365/2022 registered at Police Station Galta Gate, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 21 & 22 of the NDPS Act. 2. The First Bail Application bearing No.4718/2023 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2024, relying upon the observations and findings given in the case of Shakti Gurjar Vs. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminial Misc. Bail Application No.13814/2023), decided on 30.07.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2022 and till date, out of total twenty one (21) prosecution witnesses, only eight (8) witnesses have been examined. Counsel further submits that due to delay in [2025:RJ-JP:1533] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12649/2024] conclusion of the trial, the right of the petitioner of speedy trial is envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner has filed this bail application only on the ground of delay in the trial. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the second bail application and submits that the commercial quantity of the contraband (Tramadol) is 250 gms. and the quantity of Tarmadol which has recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner is 6723.71 gms. 6. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined so far. 7. The commercial quantity of the contraband (Tramadol) is 250 gms. whereas recovery from the possession of the accused- petitioner is of huge quantity of Tramadol that is 6723.71 gms, which speaks the level of the crime in which the accused- petitioner is involved. 8. This Court while dismissing the first bail application of the accused-petitioner has observed that this distribution/supply of the narcotic substances to gain huge financial benefits has destroyed the life and future of the youth generation. Even in the rural areas this narcotics addiction has become hazardous and the addiction of narcotic drugs by the youth results into other crimes and more particularly the theft & extortion etc. The huge quantity of Tramadol has been recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner speaks of his intention and motive of committing the offence. 9. As per Notification S.O. 1760 (E.) dated 26.04.2018 issued by the Revenue Department amended S.O. 1055 (E) dated [2025:RJ-JP:1533] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12649/2024] 19.10.2001 by inserting Tramadol as Entry 110Y to the Schedule of Psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act and specifies its commercial quantity to be 250 gms. This makes it amply clear that the Petitioner ought to have had a valid authorization as per Rule 58 before exporting Tramadol. 10. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince this Court as regards the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for releasing the accused-petitioner on bail. Counsel has also not been able to show that there was any kind of deliberate or undue delay on part of the prosecution in delaying the trial of the case. 11. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Therefore, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /32