[2025:RJ-JP:46845] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 5th Bail Application No. 13827/2025 Mahesh Sansi S/o Shri Sitaram Sansi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sansiyon Ki Dhani, Village Heerawala, Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur, East. (At Present Petitioner Lodged In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.L. Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Add. GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 20/11/2025 1. This fifth bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.0257/2024 registered at Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur City (East) for offence under Sections 8/20 & 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner invited the attention of this Court regarding certain exhibits to show the illegality in making the investigation and seizure of the contrabands. 3. It is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that appreciation of evidence cannot be made at the stage of consideration of the bail application. 4. In the same criminal case, while considering the bail application of the other similar situated co-accused the Coordinate [2025:RJ-JP:46845] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13827/2025] Bench dismissed the bail application vide order dated 01.11.2025 and observed as under:- "11. Having taken note of the entire circumstances, it is evident from the facts of the case that two persons, Kishan and Mahesh, were sitting at a place where 13 gunny bags were stored, and from these gunny bags, 129.980 kg of ganja was recovered. The recovered quantity is commercial. During investigation, it has also come to notice that 10 kg of ganja was sold to one Jeetu Lal Yogi. The material available on record indicated that even similarly placed accused Mahesh was not granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench and four times bail application(s) preferred by Mahesh were dismissed. The judgments as referred hereinabove in order dated 18.09.2025 by this Court clearly indicate that it is necessary for the Court to record satisfaction under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, considering that when conditions are not fulfilled, the Court cannot grant bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity. The material also indicated that eight witnesses were examined so far by the trial court, and we have considered the cross-examination of witnesses, in particular PW-4, PW-6, and PW-7. Also considered different memos Ex. P-14, P-15, P-17, P-26, P-27, P- 28, and P-38. In Ex. P-38, name of Constable Suraj is not mentioned in the table, but in GD brief, name of Constable Suraj is mentioned. In Ex. P-26, the time of search was mentioned as 6.25 a.m., but in other memos it indicated that it was in fact p.m. Therefore, there may be a case of bona fide mistake in mentioning a.m. in Ex. P-26. 12. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused Kishan on bail." 5. Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the seriousness and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this 5th bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /3