[2025:RJ-JP:7863] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15807/2024 Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Anatpura, Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur, At Present Riddhi Siddhi Clinic, Manpura Machedi, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 689/2025 Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gopal Krishan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chounp, Tehsil Amer, Police Station Daulatpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siyaram Sharma Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/02/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.430/2024 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of NDPS Act. Investigation is being [2025:RJ-JP:7863] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15807/2024] conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest & there are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against them. Trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners; trial will take time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay & 2) Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Late Gopal Krishan shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of [2025:RJ-JP:7863] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15807/2024] Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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. 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioners are further directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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 them by this Court. 10. The observation made hereinabove 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 /437 & 439