[2025:RJ-JP:6249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15550/2024 Parjindra Singh @ Pinka Mistary S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kangadh, Bhutna, Police Station Sadar Masana, District Patiala, Punjab (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Simran Bharti For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Manoj Singh Sikarwar, SHO, Ramganj Mandi, Kota Rural through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/02/2025 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.110/2024 registered at Police Station Suket, District Kota Rural (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that arrest of the petitioner has been made solely on the basis of police interrogation of co- [2025:RJ-JP:6249] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15550/2024] accused Subhash Singh who was found in possession of the contraband. Counsel submits that although, it has been alleged that according to the call log of the co-accused Subhash Singh, he was in contact to the petitioner through mobile No.9914154968 but it appears form the charge-sheet that there is no evidence available on record that shows aforesaid mobile number belongs to the petitioner. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2024 and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She submits that looking to the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. So far as rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of [2025:RJ-JP:6249] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15550/2024] the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and prima facie, it does not appear from the charge-sheet that aforesaid mobile number belongs to the petitioner; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 7. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Parjindra Singh @ Pinka Mistary S/o Ranjeet Singh 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. 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. 9. 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. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording [2025:RJ-JP:6249] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15550/2024] the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /307