[2025:RJ-JP:44811] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13458/2025 Ashok Dayama S/o Late Shri Sitaram Dayama, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khatikokamohallah, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Dudu, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur (Raj.)) ----Petitioner Versus Central Bureau Of Narcotic, Through Standing Counsel ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Ms. Jaya Mitra & Mr. Prashant Tada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special PP with Mr. Vaibhav Jhankra Mr. Prashant Dahiya, Investigating Of- ficer HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/10/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2022 registered at Police Station Central Bureau Of Narcotics (CBN), Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 8/21, 8/22 & 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 The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 11.02.2025. Now, this second bail application has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that false [2025:RJ-JP:44811] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13458/2025] recovery of contraband (tablets of tramadol, alprazolam etc.) has been shown to be made from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that initially, co-accused namely- Nirbhay Gaur and other co-accused persons were arrested in this matter. During the course of interrogation, co-accused- Nirbhay Gaur disclosed the fact that he supplied contraband to the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid information, premises of the petitioner was searched and it was alleged that tablets of tramadol, alprazolam etc. was recovered in commercial quantity. Counsel submits the co-accused namely- Nirbhay Gaur, Mahendra Pal Singh, Kuldeep Singh & Vinod Yadav have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. 4. Per contra, Learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently [2025:RJ-JP:44811] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13458/2025] opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to him. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused persons of this case have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and petitioner has already suffered incarceration of about 13 months. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that aforementioned co- accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court, so also the fact that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the fact that petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2024, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Ashok Dayama S/o Late Shri Sitaram Dayama 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, [2025:RJ-JP:44811] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13458/2025] 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 Central Bureau of Narcotics, Jaipur, till trial is concluded. 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 it off for a longer period intentionally. 10. Concerned Officer of the Bureau shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the Bureau, as directed above, the Concerned Officer of the Bureau is 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 Officer of the Bureau 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 /92