[2025:RJ-JP:45358] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5825/2025 Lakkhiram S/o Shri Dhannaram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Shahpura Thedi, Police Station Khanori, District Sangrur, Punjab. (At Present In Sub Jail Kotputli District Kotputli Behror) ----Applicant Versus The State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Pareek For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 12/11/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 0225/2023 registered at Police Station Bhabru District Kotputli-Behror for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act & Section 420 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is 38 years of age and is the sole breadwinner of his family. It is submitted that the applicant has been behind bars for more than 13 months. Learned counsel contends that no contraband article has been recovered from the applicant and that he has no connection with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that the applicant is presently in judicial custody and, at the time of the alleged incident, he was already in custody in another matter also. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the [2025:RJ-JP:45358] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5825/2025] judgments rendered in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12055/2024, Jassa Ram @ Jasa Ram @ Jasiya @ Jaswant @ Jasu vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 08.10.2024, and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10994/2023, Shishpal @ Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 01.03.2024, passed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has stoutly opposed the bail application and submitted that the contraband recovered in the present case is five times more than the commercial quantity, i.e., 256 kilograms. It is further submitted that out of the five criminal antecedents attributed to the applicant, two pertain to offences under the NDPS Act. Learned Public Prosecutor further contends that the plea of alibi raised by the applicant is a matter of evidence, which can only be adjudicated during the course of trial. 4. Having heard the submissions tendered by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which impose stringent conditions for the grant of bail, nevertheless, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, are distinguishable; that there are criminal antecedents of akin nature, attributed to the applicant; that the quantity recovered is enormously higher than the commercial quantity as prescribed; moreover, the Court is of the view that, unless a prima facie case is made out and the twin conditions prescribed under the provision of Section 37 of the [2025:RJ-JP:45358] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5825/2025] NDPS Act are satisfied, bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine. 5. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS stand dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/8