[2025:RJ-JP:22183] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1207/2025 Gurjeet Singh S/o Joginder Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Near Khalsa School, Nissing P.S. Nissing, District Karnal, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kuruk- shetra (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.GA. with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 27/05/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 with Section 187(2) of B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-peti- tioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0019/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar, Baran, District Baran, for the offence(s) under Sections 8 and 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychtropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he is in judicial custody since 05.07.2024. He further submits that a proper charge-sheet has not been filed within 180 days, therefore, the petitioner should be given benefit of default bail under Section 187(2) of B.N.S.S. He further submits that the trial of the case will take considerable time and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. He further submits that the charge- sheet filed was incomplete and, therefore, should not be [2025:RJ-JP:22183] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1207/2025] considered as proper charge-sheet, hence, the petitioner may be entitled to the benefit of default bail. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently op- posed the bail application. He further submitted that from the record, it is reflected that the first bail application bearing No.531/2024, filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, Baran, vide order dated 23.09.2024. Thereafter, the 2nd bail application was filed on the ground of default bail. It is evident from the record that the question so raised in the in- stant application i.e. default bail was not raised during the hearing of the first bail application, which was dismissed on its merits vide order dated 23.09.2024. The 2nd bail application was dismissed on its merits by the learned trial Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 wherein argument of default bail was also considered and it was held that the petitioner was arrested on 05.07.2024 and the chargesheet has already been filed on 27.12.2024, within time prescribed during the winter vacations. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the mate- rial available on record. 6. Considering the contentions put forth by both the parties and while examining the issue of default bail under Section 187(2) of B.N.S.S., this Court considered the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of In- vestigation Vs. Kapil Wadhawan & Anr. reported in (2024) 3 SCC 734, decided on 24.01.2024 and in the matter of Ritu Chhabria Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Writ Petition (Criminal) [2025:RJ-JP:22183] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1207/2025] No.60/2023, decided on 26.04.2023. This Court also considered the fact that subsequent to the aforesaid judgments passed in Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) and Ritu Chhabria (supra), in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Manpreet Singh Talwar; Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5724/2023, decided on 12.05.2023, It has come on record that the Union of India is in the process of filing a review application against the judgment dated 26.04.2023 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.60/2023. In that view of the matters, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground of default bail. 7. Furthermore, considering the merits of the case, specifically the quantity of recovered contraband, which is above the commercial quantity and also the fact that three cases of a similar nature are pending against the present petitioner, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act and looking to the gravity of the offence and nature of allegation levelled against the accused- petitioner, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove is only for the decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/22