[2025:RJ-JP:49945] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 13250/2025 Pankaj Rathore S/o Madanlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sinduriya, Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jhalawar). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar, Adv., with Ms. Seema Shekhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/12/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.70/2025 registered at Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:49945] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13250/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that he was found near the place of recovery, which is field of co-accused person namely Rahul Rathore. Counsel further submits that presence of the petitioner at the alleged place was natural as his agricultural filed is also situated near the place of recovery, which is evident from the site plan filed by the Investigating Agency along with the charge-sheet. It is also evident from the record that information was received by the police with regard to the involvement of the co-accused only. Counsel further argues that the petitioner was not in exclusive possession of the contraband. Counsel contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only one witness has been examined out of eighteen cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that considering the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute embargo on grant of bail. While considering [2025:RJ-JP:49945] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13250/2025] bail, the Court is not required to record a positive finding of innocence; rather, it must assess, prima facie, whether the accused may not be guilty, upon a reasonable and broad evaluation of the material on record. Meticulous examination of evidence is not warranted at this stage. 7. The petitioner has been in custody for more than eight months, and there appears no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the cherished right to personal liberty, and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially considering the fact that there is no reference to the petitioner in the information received by the police regarding the storage of the contraband, so also considering the fact that agricultural field of the petitioner is situated near the place of recovery and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only one witness has been examined out of eighteen cited prosecution witnesses as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 9. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Pankaj Rathore S/o Madanlal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with [2025:RJ-JP:49945] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13250/2025] two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty 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 conclusion of the trial. 11. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, 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. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. 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 MADAN/7