[2025:RJ-JP:10966] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15010/2024 Mukesh S/o Ramprasad, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Bus Stand Karwar, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.253/2024 registered at Police Station Kundera, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation/investigation of co-accused person namely Manraj who was found in possession of contraband. Counsel submits that the said co-accused person has been granted benefit of bail by this court. Trial of the case will take considerable time in its [2025:RJ-JP:10966] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15010/2024] conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2024. Counsel further submits that on 06.03.2025 father of the petitioner was expired. In these circumstances, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. She submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused person Manraj who was found in possession of contraband, has been granted bail by this court; trial will take time; looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Mukesh S/o Ramprasad, 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:10966] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15010/2024] 7. 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 every week in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. 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. 9. If breach of any 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. 10. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /17