[2025:RJ-JP:39181] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7704/2025 Mahendra Singh Jadoun S/o Shri Subedar Singh Jadoun, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Anand Nagar, Demoli, Police Station- Khudgaon, District- Karauli, Presently Residing At House No- 32, Awadhpuri Jhotwara, Police Station- Jhotwara. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Special P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/09/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.902/2023 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 8/21 & 8/22 of the NDPS Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the accused-petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16045/2023 was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2024 with the detailed observations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in making seizure of the contraband. [2025:RJ-JP:39181] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7704/2025] 4. It has also been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused-petitioner is also facing one more criminal case of murder. 5. While dismissing the first bail application filed by the accused-petitioner this Court referring the judgment passed in case of Shakti Gurjar Vs. State & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13814/2023) decided on 30.07.2024 observed therein that non-compliance of any of the provisions of the Act of 1985 can only be scrutinized only on the basis of the evidence to be led before the trial Court i.e. the evidence of the material witnesses who are connected with the compliance of such provisions. Until and unless those witnesses who are connected with the compliance of such provisions are got examined by the trial Court only then it can be considered and scrutinized whether the compliance of any such provision has been made or not or if same has been made then what were the reasons or causes which led to such non-compliance because some reasons or causes be very material to be considered by the trial Court or the Appellate Court. 6. That in the present case, the seizure was made by the prosecution witness, namely, Prabhu Singh and he has not been examined so far. 7. The submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioner as regards the non-compliance of the provisions of the Act in relation to seizure of the contraband can only be considered after examination of the officer who has made the seizure and that by [2025:RJ-JP:39181] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7704/2025] the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence recorded by him. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made above, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application filed by the accused- petitioner is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /3