[2025:RJ-JP:12781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 2671/2025 Punaram Gurjar S/o Ratnaram @ Ratanlal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sutharo Ka Bas, Asarlai, Police Station Jaitaran, District Byavar (Raj.). (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/03/2025 1. The instant third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.162/2023 registered at Police Station Mandana, District Kota (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge- sheet in this matter. 2. Second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2024 thus, this third bail application has been preferred on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband i.e., poppy husk weighing 76kg and 200gms was not in exclusive possession of the petitioner. It appears from [2025:RJ-JP:12781] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2671/2025] the report dated 15.03.2025 received from the jail authority that petitioner is seriously ill as he has tested positive for HIV. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (crl.) No(s).16671/2024 titled as Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit Vs. State of Rajasthan wherein benefit of bail was granted to the accused after considering period of incarceration i.e., one year and eight months. It is submitted that till date only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses thus, possibility of further time in culmination of trial cannot be ruled out. It is contended that charge-sheet has been filed. Petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel further submits that considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he is suffering from illness, benefit of bail should be granted to him. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that alleged recovered contraband i.e., Poppy Husk weighing 76kg and 200gms is in commercial quantity thus, considering the rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has already been behind the bars for almost eighteen months and still trial will take time in its conclusion. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most [2025:RJ-JP:12781] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2671/2025] precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. 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. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact the petitioner is suffering from illness as he has tested positive for HIV, so also considering the fact that till date only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the third bail application 9. The third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Punaram Gurjar S/o Ratnaram @ Ratanlal, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a [2025:RJ-JP:12781] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2671/2025] 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. 10. 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 second week of every month in the concerned police station. 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. 12. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J SAURABH/36