[2025:RJ-JD:670] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15337/2024 Loonaram S/o Motiram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gemaliyawas, P.s. Degana, Dist. Nagaur (Raj) (Lodged In Dist. Jail Nagaur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Ravindra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 06/01/2025 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 43/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Rol 3. District Nagaur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/18 & 8/21 of the NDPS Act 5. Offences added, if any Sections 8/25 and 8/29 of NDPS Act 6. Date of passing of impugned order 30.11.2024 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. No case for the alleged offences is made out against [2025:RJ-JD:670] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15337/2024] him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Jitendra (Bail Application No. 9462/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the aforesaid co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The recovered contraband is well below demarcated commercial quantity. In the given circumstances, the embargo contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act is not attracted in this case. Co-accused Jitendra has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9462/2024. Thus, on the ground of parity and considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. [2025:RJ-JD:670] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15337/2024] 5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J 132-divya/-