[2025:RJ-JP:5881] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2054/2025 Suresh S/o Bagadaram, R/o Bavarawa, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Chhabada, District Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chain Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.126/2023 registered at Police Station Sarthal, District Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act, Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Section 307 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act, Sections 3/25 & 25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act and Sections 307, 332, 353, 420, 333 & 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that false case has been prepared against the petitioner by investigating agency. Counsel submits that other co-accused namely Biramchand & Dinesh Lovevanshi have been granted bail [2025:RJ-JP:5881] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2054/2025] by this Court. Counsel submits that three prosecution witnesses have been examined during the course of trial including Seizure Officer. Counsel submits that accused petitioner was not arrested from the spot. He further submits that there are several things which create serious doubt on the prosecution story. He submits that in the FIR, which was registered on 22.09.2023, all the things which were recovered in the search of the car have been mentioned and memos were prepared accordingly but just to entangle the co-accused Biramchand in this case, on 22.09.2023, a memo showing false recovery of TC (Transfer Certificate) of the co-accused Biramchand was prepared. While drawing attention of the Court towards testimony of PW.2 Chhutan Lal, he submits that as per the statement of this witness, Ct. Sujan, who allegedly sustained gunfire injury in the incident, was admitted in the hospital on 21.09.2023 at 9:10 PM whereas in the FIR, it has been alleged that on 21.09.2023 at 9:31 PM, the police party left the police station for patrolling and at about 10:20 PM, they noticed one car coming from Patlapani village and when they signaled the driver of the said car to stop it, one of the persons sitting inside the car, fired gunshot on police party in which Ct. Sujan sustained injury. The police party chased the car, however, the occupants of the said car, left it abandoned and escaped from there and could not be apprehended at spot. Counsel submits that on these grounds facility of bail was granted to the co-accused Biramchand and case of the present petitioner is also on the same footing. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2024 and [2025:RJ-JP:5881] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2054/2025] further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application. She submits that matter relates to commercial quantity. It is further submitted that five other cases have been registered against the petitioner out of which four cases are under the NDPS Act. 4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record 5. 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. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as also the fact that petitioner was not apprehended at the spot; lacunas in the prosecution case as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner as noted above; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, [2025:RJ-JP:5881] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2054/2025] I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 7. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Suresh S/o Bagadaram shall be released on bail provided he 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 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. 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 week of every month in the concerned police station. 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 him by this Court. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /55