[2025:RJ-JP:18998] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2994/2025 Angrej Singh S/o Sahab Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dabankhedi, Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal (Haryana) (At Present Confined In The Districtjail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Ms. Shweta Soni For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/05/2025 1. The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.165/2023 registered at Police Station Chechat, District Kota Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of NDPS Act and Sections 420 & 465 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.11.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail if there is change in circumstances. Now, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner as persons who were found in possession of the alleged contraband have been granted benefit of bail by this court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that according [2025:RJ-JP:18998] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2994/2025] to the prosecution story, petitioner was not apprehended at the spot as he somehow managed to escape from the place of recovery. It is submitted that till date, only 1 witness has been examined out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. It is contended that petitioner has suffered incarceration of about 17 months as he is in custody since 21.11.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him out of which two cases are registered under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that in one case, petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. Counsel submits that according to the prosecution case, petitioner is registered owner of the car in which contraband was being carried by the co-accused persons and a fake number plate was being used instead of original number plate. In these circumstances, considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.01.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.16671/2024 titled as Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit Versus State of Rajasthan wherein after considering the fact that accused has already suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 8 months facility of bail was granted to the accused despite the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act was registered against [2025:RJ-JP:18998] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2994/2025] him. Counsel also relies upon an order passed by co-ordinate bench of this court on 20.12.2024 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15003/2024 titled as Dheeraj Khandelwal Versus Central Bureau of Narcotics wherein after considering the period of incarceration, benefit of bail was granted to the accused. Counsel further submits that petitioner has already been acquitted in one case which was registered under sections 335 and 452 of IPC. 6. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. 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 the fact that petitioner has previously been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act and according to the prosecution story, petitioner was present in the car but somehow he managed to escape from the place of recovery, as also the fact that commercial quantity of poppy husk has been recovered in this case and same was being carried in the car by using fake number plate thus, this Court is unable to record its satisfaction which is required under Section 37 of NDPS Act that in case petitioner is released on bail, he will not repeat any other offence particularly when after being convicted under the NDPS Act and being on bail in another case, present case came to be registered against him for similar offence. 8. Accordingly, this second criminal misc. bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /35