[2025:RJ-JP:48157] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 9th Bail Application No. 15047/2025 Mukesh S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Mehra Wali Dhani Markhi Tan Hanutiya Police Station Amarsar, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar with Ms. Seema Shekhar & Ms. Mamta Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/11/2025 1. This ninth bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.24/2022 registered at Police Station Amarsar, District Jaipur Rural for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. Previous bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioner were dismissed vide orders dated 21.10.2022, 27.04.2023, 02.12.2023, 06.03.2024, 07.10.2024, 09.01.2025 and 25.09.2025. Now, this ninth bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is a [2025:RJ-JP:48157] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-15047/2025] case of recovery of 64.900 kgs of Poppy Husk which is marginally above the commercial quantity. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2022 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of nearly three years and eight months. Counsel submits that on earlier occasion benefit of bail was declined to the petitioner after considering the fact that three other cases of similar nature have been registered against him. Counsel submits that in two cases, no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in those cases solely on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused. Counsel submits that in one case, alleged recovery of 1kg of opium has been made from the possession of the petitioner, which is admittedly less than commercial quantity. It is submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view 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. It is submitted that three witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and keeping the petitioner in further custody would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in this matter therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. He submits [2025:RJ-JP:48157] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-15047/2025] that on earlier occasions, bail was declined by this Court and thereafter, petitioner approached Hon’ble Supreme Court where also, prayer of bail was declined. He submits that there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this ninth bail application. He further submits that trial is at fag end as 23 witnesses have already been examined, out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5397/2019 titled as Ghanshyam Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed:- “Though Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial is almost at the verge of completion, in our view both the petitioners are to be given an opportunity to put forth their defence”. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The Supreme Court in “Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab” 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 504, has extended the benefit of bail where custody period of accused was more than two years. In “Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” benefit of bail was granted to the accused where custody period was two years and seven months. In Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) bail was granted to the accused where the matter was fixed for defence evidence and in “Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union [2025:RJ-JP:48157] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-15047/2025] Territory of Jammu and Kashmir” bail was granted to the accused as accused had suffered incarceration for a period of two years and five months. In “Tapan Das Vs. Union of India” bail was granted to the accused where custody period was around four years. 8. The petitioner has already served sentence of almost three years and eight months. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it 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 material collected during investigation. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, as also considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra), Ghanshyam Sharma (supra), Kulwant Singh Vs. [2025:RJ-JP:48157] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-15047/2025] State of Punjab (supra), Amit Singh Moni (supra), Abdul Majeed Lone (supra) and Tapan Das (supra) as well as looking to the custody period of the accused petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this ninth bail application. 11. This ninth bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Mukesh S/o Late Shri Hanuman Sahay, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only), out of which one must be given by his family member, 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. 12. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first and third weeks of every month, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period. [2025:RJ-JP:48157] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-15047/2025] 13. 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, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 14. If breach of any 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 the petitioner by this Court. 15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 16. 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 /11