[2026:RJ-JP:2860] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16901/2025 Devendra S/o Giriraj, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nimoda, Police Station Keshoraipatan, District Bundi, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Chhabra, District Baran). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 371/2026 Naresh Kumar S/o Heerala, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Raghunathpura, P.s. Talera, Bundi (Raj.) Accused Confined In Sub- Jail Chabra, Distt Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun Mr. Carn Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2026 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.149/2024 registered at Police Station Sarthal, District Baran for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police [2026:RJ-JP:2860] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-16901/2025] filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the seizure officer. Now, seizure officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 15.09.2024, and as such, they have suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 4 months. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with properly. Counsel contends that bare perusal of the testimony of the Seizure Officer would reveal that on the pretext of an accidental search, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not adhered to. Counsel further submits that despite the availability of the independent witnesses, no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure proceedings. Counsel further submits that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. He cannot escape from his obligation merely by saying that a person refused to become an independent witness and if any person refuses to become a witness, his name should be recorded and proper action should be initiated against him for [2026:RJ-JP:2860] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-16901/2025] disobeying the order of the public servant. It has been admitted by the Seizure Officer in his testimony that the entire seizure operation was videographed. However, it is an admitted position that no report relating to the electronic evidence has been prepared and no certificate as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been brought on record. In the absence of such compliance, the videographic evidence cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. Counsel further submits that Section 105 of the BNSS mandates videography of the crime scene, the object of which is to ensure transparency and to obviate arbitrariness in seizure proceedings. Non-compliance with the aforesaid statutory mandate, coupled with the failure to adhere to the evidentiary requirements governing electronic evidence, casts a serious doubt on the legality and reliability of the seizure proceedings. Counsel further submits that alleged recovery was made on 15.09.2024 while inventory was prepared on 01.10.2024 and same day samples were drawn however, samples were deposited in the FSL on 09.10.2024 with a delay of 8 days. Finally, it is urged that the continued incarceration of the petitioners serves no useful purpose, particularly looking to the fact that no other case has been registered against them under the NDPS Act. It is contended that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 21 cited prosecution witnesses. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by [2026:RJ-JP:2860] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-16901/2025] learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 540kgs has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners which is above commercial quantity. He submits that considering the recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. The petitioners have been in custody for more than sixteen months, and there appears no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. Thus, the petitioners’ fundamental right to speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, stands infringed. Prolonged incarceration generally militates against the cherished right to personal liberty, and in such a situation, conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in series of cases. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as noted above, especially considering the [2026:RJ-JP:2860] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-16901/2025] statement of the Seizure Officer, as also considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period which is more than sixteen months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these second bail applications. 9. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Devendra S/o Giriraj, and (2) Naresh Kumar S/o Heerala, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 11. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 12. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2860] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-16901/2025] Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN/23-24