[2025:RJ-JP:51470] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13531/2025 Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Motilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Khidkhindi Police Station Todabhim District Karauli (Raj) At Present Nursing Officer Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital Sector 9 Bhilai Durg Chattisgarh Care Of Risaali Sector 268B Police Station Newaai, District Durg (Chattisgarh) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/12/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.381/2024 registered at Police Station Borkhera, District Kota City (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 8/20, 8/29 & 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. Earlier, vide order dated 05.05.2025, benefit of bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court. Thereafter, it came to the notice of the Court while hearing the bail application of co-accused Tanwar Singh Jhala that certain documents showing involvement of the present petitioner were not filed by the petitioner along with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, considering the aforementioned fact, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled by this Court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:51470] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13531/2025] dated 13.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the Seizure Officer and the Investigating Officer during the course of trial. Now, Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer have been examined during the course of trial thus, this bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after cancellation of bail, petitioner surrendered before the trial Court. It is submitted that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that co-accused Tanwar Singh Jhala who was found in possession of contraband disclosed that contraband was loaded by the petitioner and vehicle in question was in exclusive control of the petitioner as brother of the petitioner is registered owner of the said vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle in question was sent by the petitioner, through the driver who is the co-accused in this case, to drop the said vehicle at his parental house in District Karauli. It is submitted that without any knowledge of the petitioner contraband was loaded by the co-accused person. Counsel submits that co-accused Tanwar Singh Jhala has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is a practicing doctor in the State of Chhattisgarh and after surrender, he is in custody since 01.09.2025. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:51470] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13531/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that matter pertains to the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act 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. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that co-accused Tanwar Singh Jhala has been granted benefit of bail by this Court, so also the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he is a practicing doctor in the State of Chhattisgarh, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable 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 the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:51470] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13531/2025] 8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner -Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Motilal, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty 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. 9. 9. 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, till conclusion of the trial. 10. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. 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. 11. 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. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /554