[2025:RJ-JP:46730] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15093/2025 Sanjay @ Satish S/o Ratanlal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Badlev Sink Kali Mandir Ke Pass (Gopal Nagar, Near Water Tank) Kosi Kala, District Mathura (U.p.) (At Present Accused In District Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Arpit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/11/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2022 registered at Police Station Jurhera, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/22 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 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 The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of the Investigating Officers namely- Mahesh Kumar, SI and Ramkishan Yadav. Now, Seizure officer as well as aforementioned Investigating Officers have been examined during [2025:RJ-JP:46730] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15093/2025] 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 admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the Investigating Officers that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of disclosures made by co-accused person during the course of Investigation. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely- Dharmendra and Laxman have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel submits that petitioner has been denied benefit of bail solely on the basis of the fact that four other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him however, in one case benefit of bail has been granted to him by Punjab and Haryana High Court and in two cases proceedings qua the petitioner have been stayed by Allahabad High Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel further submits that petitioner is ready to abide and comply by all the conditions which may be imposed upon him by this Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of contraband in commercial quantity and looking to the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it can be concluded that he is deeply involved in drug trafficking. [2025:RJ-JP:46730] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15093/2025] 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 both the parties, especially considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, as also the fact that co-accused persons namely- Dharmendra and Laxman have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Sanjay @ Satish S/o Ratanlal 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 or close relative, 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. 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 and third 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 [2025:RJ-JP:46730] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15093/2025] 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. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter 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 him 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 GAUTAM JAIN /11