[2025:RJ-JP:42640] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13610/2025 Bintesh @ Bunty S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Rupaheda, Police Station Devli Manjhi, District Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma with Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/10/2025 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.149/2024 registered at Police Station Kanwas, District Kota Rural, Rajasthan for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. After considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 11.12.2024 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, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that perusal [2025:RJ-JP:42640] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13610/2025] of the Seizure Officer would reveal that false recovery of 3.472 kg of Ganja has been shown from the petitioner. Counsel submits that admittedly, alleged recovery of contraband is below quantity. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.08.2024 as such, he has suffered incarceration of almost fourteen months and 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 petitioner is habitual offender as several other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is almost fourteen months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Bintesh @ Bunty S/o Mohanlal 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42640] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13610/2025] 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. 8. 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. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and investigating agency. He shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and may not switch off for a longer period intentionally. 9. 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 directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. 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. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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 /17