[2025:RJ-JP:13856] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 893/2025 Lokesh Kumar S/o Ramlal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gram Singhpur, P.S. Kapasan, District Chittorgarh (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Beawar). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deshraj Kalwania, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.187/2022 registered at Police Station Jawaja, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged recovery and same has been planted upon him. It is contended that mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was not complied with in the instant case, which provides for Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Counsel argues that the work of drawing sample was not done in [2025:RJ-JP:13856] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-893/2025] accordance with the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act which mandates a competent officer to prepare an inventory of narcotic drugs with adequate particulars. 3. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2022 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about three years. It is submitted that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh: 2023 SCC online SC 862. 2. Rabi Prakash vs The State of Odisha: Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.4169/2023, decided on 13.07.2023. 3. Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi): 2023 SCC Online SC 352. 4. Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022. 5. Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh: Crimial Appeal No.668/2020. 6. Tapan Das vs. UOI (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021. 7. Raju Ram vs State of Bihar: (2023) 1 Supreme 670. 4. He thus, prays that the instant application for bail may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that alleged recovered contraband i.e., opium dodapost weighing 243kg and 100 grams is in commercial quantity and same has been recovered from the vehicle which was being driven by the [2025:RJ-JP:13856] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-893/2025] petitioner thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted. 6. 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. 7. As per record, the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2022 and thus, he has suffered incarceration of about three years till date. There is a bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future and thus, the fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being violated. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has granted bail to different accused persons by considering the period of incarceration of about two years or more. Further, process of drawing of samples has not been done in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 17.04.2022 and there are no criminal antecedents against him, trial will take time in its conclusion, so also considering the fact that in similar fact situation, benefit of bail has been extended by Hon’ble Apex court as well as by this court to the persons who have suffered incarceration of 2 years or more, but without making any comments on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to accept the instant bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:13856] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-893/2025] 9. Thus, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner- Lokesh Kumar S/o Ramlal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes 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. 10. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. 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. 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 him by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN ), J MADAN/103