[2025:RJ-JP:42455] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 10640/2025 Dheeraj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vijay Agrawal, Aged About 29 Years, Resides At House No. 1217, Bajaj Bhawan, Vevaal Mohalla, Bhandarej, Teh. And Dist. Dausa. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Of Narcotics, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13423/2025 Shahnil S/o Anil Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1341, Behind Chandrashekhar Ki Bagichi, Nahri Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus Central Narcotics Bureau, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantnu Bansal Mr. Mohit Khandelwal Mr. Keshav Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP, for NCB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/10/2025 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Case No.01/2023 registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Narcotics, Jaipur for offences punishable under [2025:RJ-JP:42455] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10640/2025] Sections 8/21 and 8/22(c) of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioners. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 28.01.2025 while granting liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, thus, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Arguing the case of accused petitioner Dheeraj Agrawal, it is submitted that premises of the accused petitioner was searched on the basis of information furnished by co-accused Shahnil, after eight months of the alleged recovery made from co-accused. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was having a license and his license was cancelled, but despite that, he was having some expired drugs. It is contended that in these circumstances, the maximum allegation against the petitioner is that he violated the conditions of the license. 4. So far as the case of petitioner Shahnil is concerned, it is argued that absolutely false case has been registered against the petitioner as he is neither salesman nor owner of the questioned shop. It is submitted that true facts have been withheld from the Investigation Agency because from the testimony of the seizure officer, it appears that questioned shop was being run by Rahul Bhargav, on the strength of license in his name. His father [2025:RJ-JP:42455] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10640/2025] was with the raiding party at the time of search of the shop in question but he deliberately did not disclose the fact to the raiding party that shop in question is in the name of his son Rahul and later on, false story was prepared stating that shop in question was run by father of the petitioner namely Anil Sharma as salesman. Learned counsel contends that there is no document available on record on the basis whereof it can be said that house in question from where recovery of drugs was allegedly effected, was in possession of the petitioner Shahnil either in the capacity of owner or in the capacity of tenant. It is contended that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is argued that petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they are in custody since 16.05.2024 & 16.10.2023. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that looking to the huge quantity of recovered contraband, bail should not be granted to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42455] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10640/2025] 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. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners 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 these second bail applications. 9. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - Dheeraj Agrawal S/o Late Shri Vijay Agrawal and Shahnil S/o Anil Sharma, shall be released on bail provided, they shall furnish 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. 10. It is made clear that petitioners shall not involve in similar offence and shall mark their presence in first week in the concerned police station. It is further directed that petitioners shall share their mobile number (in use) to the trial court and [2025:RJ-JP:42455] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10640/2025] investigating agency. They shall keep their mobile phone in active mode and may not switch off for a longer period intentionally. 11. 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. 12. 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 them by this Court. 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. 14. Learned trial court is directed to verify the fact that whether any other case under the NDPS Act is registered against the petitioners. Apart from the present case, if any other case under the NDPS Act is found against the petitioners, trial Court is directed not to accept the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /67-68