[2025:RJ-JP:44870] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13731/2025 Jairam Devasi S/o Mangilal Devais, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Latoti, Tehsil/police Station Jetaran, District Pali (Rajasthan), Presently Residing At Near Poliya School, Vilada, Tehsil Vilada, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus CB.N., Through Special PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13733/2025 Ramniwas Gurjar S/o Shri Chotaram Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Latoti, Tehsil And Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus C.B.N., Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/11/2025 1. These second bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with criminal case No. 13/2024/CBN/NMH registered at C.B.N. Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh for offences [2025:RJ-JP:44870] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13731/2025] punishable under Sections 8/15(B), 8/18(B) and 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 16.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of seizure officer. Now, seizure officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the petitioners have been in custody since 19.06.2024, and have thus, undergone incarceration of about 16 months. Counsel submits that, in the present matter, when information regarding transportation of contraband was received in Neemuch (M.P.), the normal course of action would have been to convey such information to the Bureau Officials stationed at Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for appropriate action. However, the officer at Neemuch, who was the recipient of the said information, himself travelled nearly 150 kilometers to Bhawani Mandi to effect seizure of the contraband from the petitioners, who were allegedly travelling in a public roadways bus and were completely unknown to the said officer. It is submitted that this conduct renders the prosecution version highly doubtful, as the alleged seizure and interception of the bus at Bhawani Mandi appears unnatural and improbable. 4. Counsel further submits that the entire prosecution story is dubious as the seizure, as alleged, was made in a public roadways [2025:RJ-JP:44870] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13731/2025] bus at Bhawani Mandi, in the presence of number of independent witnesses, including the driver and conductor. However, the seizure witnesses in the present case are from Neemuch, which is at a distance of about 150 kilometers from the place of seizure. Such proceedings are in clear violation of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that search and seizure proceedings must be done in the presence of respectable persons residing in the same locality. It is further submitted that one of the seizure witnesses is a stock witness of the Bureau, which he himself admitted during cross-examination. Both seizure witnesses have also admitted that the contents of the seizure memo were not read to them and they signed the same simply because the officers of the Bureau were known to them. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already suffered incarceration of about 16 months, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 14639/2023), held that prolonged incarceration can be a valid ground for consideration of bail under the NDPS Act. Reliance has also been placed on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16671/2024), wherein, despite the accused having three other cases registered under the NDPS Act, the facility of bail was granted considering the period of incarceration. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents and [2025:RJ-JP:44870] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13731/2025] are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for CBN opposes the bail applications and submits that huge quantity of 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 petitioners. He further submits that seizure officer has already been examined and trial court is making all efforts to conclude the trial at earliest. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Special 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 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, [2025:RJ-JP:44870] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13731/2025] facility of bail has been granted, as also considering the fact that petitioners are languishing in jail since 19.06.2024, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and considering the lacunae in the present case pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners 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 these second bail applications. 10. Thus, these second bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners (1) Jairam Devasi S/o Mangilal Devais and (2) Ramniwas Gurjar S/o Shri Chotaram Gurjar, arrested in connection with criminal case No. 13/2024/CBN/NMH registered at C.B.N. Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of them 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 petitioners shall not involve in any other similar offence during currency of the bail. They shall mark their presence in the concerned Bureau in first week of every month till currency of trial. It is further directed that petitioners shall share their mobile numbers (in use) to the trial court and [2025:RJ-JP:44870] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13731/2025] Investigating Agency and they shall not switch off their phones for longer period. 12. Concerned Officer of the Bureau shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned Bureau, as directed above, the concerned Officer 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 Officer 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 them by this Court. 15. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /15-16