[2025:RJ-JP:6250] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 1225/2025 Ashok S/o Mohanram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Doli Kala, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Jail At Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/02/2025 1. The instant 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.324/2019 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. Later on charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the Investigating Officer who made arrest of the petitioner. Now, Investigating Officer has been examined during the course of trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:6250] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1225/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that nothing has been stated by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner in his examination-in- chief and in cross-examination also it has clearly been admitted by him that at the time of arrest no contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It has been admitted that except present case, no other case is registered against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that process of drawing of samples is to be done in the presence and under supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-compliance of this provision of law. Inventory was prepared in this matter after eight months of the alleged recovery. Counsel further submits that recovered contraband is marginally above the commercial quantity (60 Kg poppy husk). Counsel further submits that admittedly, the contraband was recovered from an abandoned vehicle and the petitioner is not the owner of the said vehicle. Petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2024. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that looking to the quantity of recovered contraband, the rigour of Section 37 of the [2025:RJ-JP:6250] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1225/2025] NDPS Act applies to the instant case and therefore, bail should not be granted to him. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 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. I have considered the contentions. 8. 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 material made available in the form of charge sheet and testimony of the Investigating Officer; trial will take time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents 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 this second bail application. 9. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Ashok S/o Mohanram, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum [2025:RJ-JP:6250] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1225/2025] 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, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 10. However, 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 of every month, till trial is concluded. 11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. 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. 12. 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 petitioner by this Court. 13. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J MAHIMA/78