[2025:RJ-JP:42415] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.11072/2025 Sandeep Kumar S/o Roshan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village And Post Randeva, Tehsil And Police Station Nakud, District Saharanpur (U.P.) At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Through The Special PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/10/2025 1. This second application for bail found under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody since 13.04.2023 in connection with Complaint No.viii(10)05/NCB/ JZU/2023 submitted by I.O., N.C.B., Jodhpur Zonal Unit, Jodhpur (Police Station, N.C.B. Jodhpur) for offences under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of seizure office. Now, seizure officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:42415] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-11072/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about two year and six months. He argues that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only four witnesses out of eleven cited witnesses have been examined. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted case of prosecution that vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted on 13.04.2023 at about 5:20 PM on public road but instead of making seizure at the place of interception, vehicle in question was brought to the Police Station Bassi wherein entire memos, i.e., seizure, notices, arrests, search and recovery memos were prepared. It is submitted that taking of the vehicle and the accused from the crime scene to the Police Station and then preparation of memos there as per their convenience has lost the sanctity of the search and seizure. It is contended that law requires that if certain thing is recovered at a particular place on the given time then the memos should be prepared at the same place in the presence of witnesses and accused. It is submitted that in the present case, there was no extraordinary circumstance available with the seizure officer to make search and seizure at any other place. It is argued that this issue was considered by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11544/2023 titled as Kamlesh Kumar vs. Union of India decided on 30.10.2023. The relevant part is reproduced as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:42415] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-11072/2025] “5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The circumstances created by the Police team in this matter brings the recovery into doubt. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the Panchnama Japti. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the shop and warehouse of the petitioner beforehand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared after a significant period of time had passed at another place(CBN, Neemach) making it seem as if seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, watering down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo.” 5. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and six months and Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. [2025:RJ-JP:42415] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-11072/2025] State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. It is submitted that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and he is ready to abide by all such conditions which may be imposed by this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for CBN opposes the bail application and submits that huge quantity of the contraband has been recovered in the case and therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioner. He further submits that during investigation, it has come out that from 26.03.2023 to 31.03.2023, several monetary transactions have taken place in the bank account of the petitioner and total Rs.3,70,000/- has been credited in his bank account. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42415] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-11072/2025] reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 9. 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 observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments wherein considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused, facility of bail has been granted, as also considering the fact that petitioner is languishing in jail since 13.04.2023, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and considering the lacunae in the present case pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 10. Thus, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner Sandeep Kumar S/o Roshan Lal, arrested in connection with Complaint No.viii(10)05/NCB/JZU/2023 submitted by I.O., N.C.B., Jodhpur Zonal Unit, Jodhpur (Police Station, N.C.B. Jodhpur) shall be released on bail provided he 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 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. 11. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other similar offence during currency of the bail. He shall mark his [2025:RJ-JP:42415] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-11072/2025] presence in the concerned police station on first monday of every month till currency of trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and Investigating Agency and he shall not switch off his phone for longer period. 12. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. 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. 15. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /20