[2025:RJ-JP:43702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14137/2025 Govinda Seal S/o Shri Gorchand Seal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nagar Alipur District Police Station Falakata, West Bengal. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14138/2025 Sameer Varman S/o Shri Pranis Varman, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rajpur Town Virati, Police Station Kotwali, District Coochbi- har, West Bengal. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Sharma for Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/10/2025 1. These second bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.670/2024 registered at Police Station Bassi (Jaipur City (East)), District Jaipur City (East) (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of [2025:RJ-JP:43702] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14137/2025] investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 8/20 and 8/21 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide orders dated 10.01.2025 and 06.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel argues that whole trial is vitiated because the seizure officer was not authorized to make seizure or arrest in the case, as neither he was posted as Station House Officer (SHO) nor he was appointed as in-charge SHO in absence of regular incumbent. The seizure officer himself has owned up to the fact that no document is on record to prove that he was working as SHO at the time of recovery. Counsel also submits that, in spite of independent witnesses being present, none was associated at the time of recovery. It is also submitted that the inventory was made on 06.01.2025 and samples were drawn on the same day however, according to the record, samples were deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on 24.01.2025 i.e., after an unexplained delay of 18 days. There is no proper or plausible reason available on record to explain such delay, though the concerned rules have a requirement of immediate deposition of samples with the FSL. Counsel also submits that the petitioners do not have any criminal records and continued detention of the petitioners would not serve [2025:RJ-JP:43702] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14137/2025] any useful purpose, particularly when there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2024 and as such, they have suffered incarceration of about 10 months. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband (Ganja) and considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioners. 5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, so also the fact that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; samples were deposited with the FSL after 18 days; there are no criminal antecedents against [2025:RJ-JP:43702] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14137/2025] the petitioners as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these second bail applications. 8. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Govinda Seal S/o Shri Gorchand Seal & (2) Sameer Varman S/o Shri Pranis Varman shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum 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 they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 10. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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. 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 them by this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:43702] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14137/2025] 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 13. Learned trial court is directed to verify the fact that whether any other case under the NDPS Act is registered against the petitioners. Apart from the present case, if any other case under the NDPS Act is found against the petitioners, trial Court is directed not to accept the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /13-14