[2025:RJ-JP:51618] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 16609/2025 Gulabdas S/o Parasram, aged about 66 Years, R/o Asop, Police Station Asop, District Jodhpur Rural (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Bhawanimandi). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/12/2025 1. This 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.254/2025 registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/29 & 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 29.08.2025 on the premise that at that time investigation was going on. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:51618] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16609/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that there is no evidence available against the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner was not in touch with any of the accused who were found in possession of the contraband. Counsel submits that perhaps, petitioner has been made accused solely on the basis of the fact that one of the co-accused is son of the petitioner. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 27.07.2025. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that matter pertains to the recovery of 89.35 kgs of poppy husk which is in commercial quantity therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:51618] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16609/2025] material collected during investigation. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner; there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Gulabdas S/o Parasram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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. 9. 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. 10. 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, the concerned SHO is [2025:RJ-JP:51618] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16609/2025] directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. 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. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 LALIT MOHAN /558