[2025:RJ-JP:7435] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 394/2025 Ramroop @ Ramu S/o Shri Lohare, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Khubpura, Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 717/2025 Arif Mohammad @ Babutivi S/o Kamruddin, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sumerganj Mandi, Indragarh, Police Station Indragarh, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Goyal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Nirmal K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/02/2025 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.215/2024 registered at Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge- sheet in this matter. [2025:RJ-JP:7435] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-394/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that matter relates to recovery of 8.43 gram of smack which is marginally above small quantity. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Arif Mohammad @ Babutivi submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused- Ramroop @ Ramu. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and 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. It is submitted that one other case under NDPS Act has been registered against accused petitioner- Ramroop @ Ramu and four other cases under NDPS Act have been registered against accused petitioner- Arif Mohammad @ Babutivi. 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, as also the fact that recovered quantity of smack is marginally above small quantity; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion 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 these bail applications. [2025:RJ-JP:7435] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-394/2025] 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – Ramroop @ Ramu S/o Shri Lohare and Arif Mohammad @ Babutivi S/o Kamruddin, 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 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J Pcg/120-121