[2025:RJ-JP:9880] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3105/2025 Suraj S/o Devidayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mangalpur, Tehsil Uchyana, District Jind, Haryana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Jangir, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, Adv., with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2025 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.136/2024 registered at Police Station Paparda, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Section 42 of Prisoners (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 2015 and Sections 8/20 and 8/29 of NDPS Act. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of supplying contraband to a prisoner who was serving his sentence in District Jail, Dausa. Counsel submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that arrest of the petitioner was not made on the same day, which creates doubt in the prosecution [2025:RJ-JP:9880] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3105/2025] story. He argues that according to the FSL report, said contraband was identified as ‘charas’ and same was 80 gms in quantity which would fall within the category of small quantity for which maximum punishment is one year. So far the offence under Section 42 of Prisoners (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 2015 is considered, maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years. It is contended that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of supplying contraband to a prisoner who was serving his sentence in District Jail, Dausa. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner so also looking to the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet; maximum punishment for the alleged offences is three years and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Suraj S/o Devidayal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of [2025:RJ-JP:9880] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3105/2025] 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. 7. 7. 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, till trial is concluded. 8. 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. 9. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/203