[2025:RJ-JP:44403] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6264/2025 Hadman Das S/o Bhanwar Das, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Meeno Ki Dhani, Cherai, Police Station Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.) (At Present In Sub Jail Beawar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/11/2025 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.314/2024 registered at Police Station Jawaja, District Beawar, Rajasthan 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, 8/29 & 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 19.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer.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. [2025:RJ-JP:44403] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6264/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovery was made on 16.10.2024 while samples have been deposited in the FSL after a delay of about 2 months on 13.12.2024. Counsel submits that no explanation is available on record with regard to the delay in depositing the samples in the FSL. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 2 witnesses have been examined out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses. 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. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2024 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than one year. 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 one other case under the NDPS Act has been registered against the [2025:RJ-JP:44403] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6264/2025] petitioner. He further submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in this matter therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Section 37 of the NDPS Act 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. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that samples were deposited in the FSL after a delay of about two months, as also considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru (supra) and Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra), and further considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 2 witnesses have been examined out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second [2025:RJ-JP:44403] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6264/2025] bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Hadman Das S/o Bhanwar Das 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. 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 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 it off for a longer period intentionally. 10. 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. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:44403] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6264/2025] 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO 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 /5