[2026:RJ-JP:28487] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 5727/2026 CNR: RJHC020341892026 | URN: CRLMB / 10232U / 2026 Jaisingh Saini S/o Late Shri Baldev Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Rathori Kuan, Nagour (Raj.). (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus Narcotics Control Bureau, Through Standing Counsel ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar Ms. Seema Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Spl. PP (for NCB) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/07/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.VIII(IO)09/NCB/JPZU/2024 registered at Central Narcotics Bureau, Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 8/22 & 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 29.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of seizure officer and investigating officer. Now, both the aforementioned witnesses have been examined thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2026:RJ-JP:28487] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-5727/2026] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that as per the prosecution case, co-accused Kavita Gurjar, was found in possession of 123.8 grams of MD, and she has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner and co-accused persons namely, Ayush and Nitin have been charge-sheeted in this case with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel contends that co-accused Nitin has been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court and co-accused Ayush has been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that as per prosecution case, Ayush procured 100 grams MD from the petitioner and thereafter, same was supplied by him to the principal accused Kavita, who was found in possession of contraband. It is contended that bail application of the petitioner has been refused mainly on the ground that four other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against him. Counsel has relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shince Babu versus State of Kerala & Anr., arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16642/2023 wherein in para No.4, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “On a specific query, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that no contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is difficult for us to apply the twin test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act while considering the petitioner's prayer for bail” and considering [2026:RJ-JP:28487] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-5727/2026] the period of incarceration, bail was allowed. Counsel has further relied upon the case of Mohanlal versus State of Rajasthan, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10317/2025, wherein after considering the period of incarceration and the fact that completion of trial is not in sight, Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the bail. Counsel has further relied upon the two orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Suvalal Khinchi @ Tota @ Suaa, arising out of Criminal Appeal No.1530/2026 and Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit versus State of Rajasthan, arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. It is submitted that the trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Narcotics Control Bureau vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab versus Balraj Singh @ Billa, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.896 of 2026 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court on the ground of period of incarceration of one year and seven months. Counsel has further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) [2026:RJ-JP:28487] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-5727/2026] No.7768/2025. Counsel contends that there are four criminal antecedents against the petitioner out of which, in one case, contraband was recovered from his possession. He further submits that the matter pertains to commercial quantity and, therefore, looking to the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau were rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in different factual matrix. In the case of State of Punjab versus Balraj Singh @ Billa, the accused was operating a drug trafficking network from within the jail premises, and the co- accused persons were found to be in conscious possession of the contraband. Similarly, in the case of Union of India versus Vigin K. Varghese, there was ample evidence on record establishing the accused’s involvement in the alleged offence. In those facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court granting bail to the accused. The facts of the present case, however, are clearly distinguishable. The petitioner was not found in conscious possession of the contraband. Moreover, apart from the interrogation of the co- accused, no such evidence is available against the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 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 considering the fact that no [2026:RJ-JP:28487] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-5727/2026] contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co-accused, who was found in possession of the contraband, has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court, as also considering the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shince Babu (supra), Mohanlal (supra), Suvalal Khinchi @ Tota @ Suaa (supra) & Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra) and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period but, without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Jaisingh Saini S/o Late Shri Baldev Ram, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty 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 till trial is concluded on the conditions indicated below:- 1. 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 the first week of every month in the concerned police station. 2. The accused shall provide his current contact number and residential address to the Investigating Officer (IO)/Jr. Investigating Officer (JIO) and shall [2026:RJ-JP:28487] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-5727/2026] keep the location tracking application on his mobile device enabled at all times. 3. In case of any change in residential address, the accused shall notify the learned trial Court through an affidavit and simultaneously inform the Investigating Officer. 4. The accused shall remain present before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing without fail. 5. The accused shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of India without prior permission of trial Court and he shall surrender his passport, if any, with the trial Court forthwith. 6. The accused shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence any witnesses in any manner. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. 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. If any breach of the aforesaid 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. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 10/CHARU SONI