[2025:RJ-JP:42453] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 7215/2025 Firdos Khan S/o Shri Gulam Rasool, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Charmai Jamba Jodhpur Rural, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer, District Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/10/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.148/2022 registered at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer of bail, if trial is not concluded within a period of six months. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. She submits that after rejection of first bail application, more than 10 months have been passed but till date, trial has not been [2025:RJ-JP:42453] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7215/2025] concluded. She submits that provisions of Section 52(a) of NDPS Act have also not been complied with in the instant case. Inventory of the seized contraband was prepared on 10.10.2022 while recovery was effected on 07.05.2022, i.e., almost after five months. Learned counsel contends that samples drawn before the jurisdictional magistrate were not sent to FSL and samples drawn by seizure officer were deposited in the FSL on 11.05.2022. She argues that only two witnesses are to be examined at trial and nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner. She relies upon the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5397/2019 titled as Ghanshyam Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed:- “Though Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial is almost at the verge of completion, in our view both the petitioners are to be given an opportunity to put forth their defence”. 4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already suffered incarceration of more than 3 years and 5 months as he is in custody since 07.05.2022. She further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner thus, [2025:RJ-JP:42453] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7215/2025] considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted. He further submits that trial is at fag end as only two prosecution witnesses are remaining to be examined. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The Apex Court in “ Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 504, has extended the benefit of bail where custody period of accused was more than two years. In “ Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” benefit of bail was given to the accused where custody period was two years and seven months. In “ Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan” (supra) bail was granted to the accused where the matter was fixed for defence evidence and in “ Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir” bail was granted to the accused as accused had suffered incarceration for a period of two years and five months. In “Tapan Das Vs. Union of India” bail was granted to the accused where custody period was around four years. 8. The petitioner has already served sentence of almost three years and five months. 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. 9. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42453] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7215/2025] 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 reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 10. I have considered the contentions. 11. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, material made available in the form of charge-sheet; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period of the accused petitioner and observation made in the above-mentioned case laws, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 12. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Firdos Khan S/o Shri Gulam Rasool, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:42453] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7215/2025] 13. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 14. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the 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. 15. If breach of any 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 the petitioner by this Court. 16. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 17. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /12