[2026:RJ-JP:32107] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1274/2026 CNR: RJHC020057612026 | URN: CRLMB / 2322U / 2026 Mukharam S/o Ramdayal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Katsura, Tehsil Arayali, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus Narcotic Control Bureau, Through Standing Counsel. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP with Mr. Vibhav Jhankra, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/08/2026 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Complaint No.01/2024/DO/Kota at Police Station NCB, Kota (Raj.) for offences under Sections 8/15(c), 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 while granting liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer. Now, the said witness has been examined during the course of trial, thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Counsel submits [2026:RJ-JP:32107] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1274/2026] that recovery of the contraband article, i.e., 109.410 Kg of poppy straw, was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and prima facie offence punishable under Section 8/15(c) of the NDPS Act is not made out against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the mandatory provisions contained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act have not been duly complied with in the present case. Counsel submits that Seizure Officer has been examined during the course of trial as PW-2 and there are major contradictions in his testimony. Counsel submits that the Seizure Officer has admitted in his testimony that the seal used during the seizure proceedings was not disposed of. Counsel further submits that the panch witnesses namely: Kunjbihari (PW- 3) and Kamlesh Gautam (PW-5), are not independent witnesses, as PW-3 was working as driver in Narcotics Bureau in the past and vehicle of PW-5 is deployed in NCB office. 4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.07.2024 and has undergone incarceration for about two years, trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion and therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no fruitful purpose. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru versus The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Therefore, considering the long period of [2026:RJ-JP:32107] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-1274/2026] incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and the circumstances emerging from the evidence recorded during trial, the present second bail application may be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that contraband article weighing 109.410 Kg of poppy straw has been recovered in this case which falls under the category of commercial quantity. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four more cases are registered against him. Counsel submits that the matter pertains to recovery of contraband of 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. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is settled that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not impose an absolute embargo on grant of bail. While considering bail, the Court is not required to record a positive finding of innocence; rather, it must assess, prima facie, whether the accused may not be guilty, upon a reasonable and broad evaluation of the material on record. Meticulous examination of evidence is not warranted at this stage. 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 considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several judgments wherein considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused, facility of bail has been granted, as also considering the testimony [2026:RJ-JP:32107] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1274/2026] of the Seizure Officer (PW-2) and Panch witnesses (PW-3 & PW-5), and considering the fact that there are no previous case registered against the petitioner under the NDPS Act, further trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period which is about two years, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 9. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Mukharam S/o Ramdayal, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- 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. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences during currency of bail and shall mark his presence in the local police station where he is presently residing in the second week of every month till conclusion of trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and investigating agency. He shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and shall not switch it off for longer period intentionally. 11. The concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording his presence. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence, as stated above, the concerned SHO is directed to intimate the matter to the concerned court forthwith. [2026:RJ-JP:32107] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-1274/2026] 12. It is made clear that breach of any of these conditions shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 13. 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 3/Manoj Solanki