[2025:RJ-JP:39765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12429/2025 Omprakash S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Nehru Nagar Chhabara, Police Station Chhabara Distt Baran, Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Sub Jail Chhabara). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammad Khan with Mr. Lakshya K. Sharma, Ms. Shirin Khan & Ms. Shazadi Bano For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.295/2023 registered at Police Station Chhabra, District Baran (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. Counsel submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that petitioner is registered owner of one of the vehicle in which co-accused [2025:RJ-JP:39765] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12429/2025] persons were carrying contraband. Counsel submits that co- accused persons who were found in possession of contraband have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him however, he fairly concedes that none of the case has been registered under the NDPS Act. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. 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 fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity, as also the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner, so also the fact that co-accused persons who were found in possession of contraband have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. 6. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed [2025:RJ-JP:39765] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12429/2025] that accused-petitioner- Omprakash S/o Radhakishan 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. 7. 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. 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. 9. 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 /83