[2025:RJ-JP:42708] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.13357/2025 1. Ramkunwar S/o Shri Gopallal, aged about 63 Years, R/o Bamuliya Mataji, Police Station Anta, District Baran (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Baran) 2. Sitaram S/o Shri Sugreev, aged about 28 Years, R/o Haniheda, Police Station Kawai, District Baran (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Nagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/10/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused- petitioners in respect of F.I.R. No.331/2025 registered at Police Station-Anta, District-Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 8 & 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'NDPS'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1-Ramkunwar is a person aged about 63 years. As per FIR, recovery of total 10kg ganja has been shown and on that basis, the petitioners have been arrested. It has also been submitted that the arrest and recovery in the instant matter has been made in utter violation of provision of Sections 42 & 50 of [2025:RJ-JP:42708] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13357/2025] NDPS. Even otherwise, the quantity shown in the FIR is less than commercial quantity, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners relating to NDPS Act. It is pointed out that although four criminal cases have been shown against the petitioner No.1-Ramkunwar, yet out of such four cases in two cases, he has been acquitted and two other cases are pending before the Court. So far as petitioner No.2-Sitaram is concerned, out of two criminal cases pending against him, one has been decided on the basis of compromise and the other one is still pending. In the above cases, the petitioners have been enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after recovery of the aforesaid contraband, no other recovery is to be effected from the petitioners and they are behind the bars since 24.09.2025 and trial of the instant case is likely to take considerably long time. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for grant a bail to the petitioners. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. Considered the submissions made at Bar. 6. In the light of above facts that there are no criminal antecedents relating to NDPS Act against the petitioners and the contraband recovered from them is less than commercial quantity and moreso, when the mode of recovery and arrest has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners being in violation of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act, without making any comment over the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:42708] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13357/2025] 7. Accordingly, the Bail Application is hereby allowed. The accused-petitioners Ramkunwar S/o Shri Gopallal & Sitaram S/o Shri Sugreev shall be released on bail in pursuance of F.I.R. No.331/2025 registered at Police Station-Anta, District-Baran on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each. That apart, the accused- petitioners shall also follow the conditions as under:- (i) They shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case. (ii) They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (iii) They shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless their presence is exempted by the trial Court. (iv) They shall regularly mark their attendance in the concerned Police Station on 25th day of every month. Concerned S.H.O shall maintain the register of attendance of the accused- petitioner. (v) On repetition of similar nature of offence during trial, the instant bail shall stand automatically cancelled. 8. In case of failure of observance of the conditions, a ground for cancellation of bail would arise. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/588