[2026:RJ-JP:2654] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6638/2025 Ajay @ Sundi S/o Suresh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Hindoli, P.s. Gadi Dist. Jind (Hariyana) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10755/2025 Matvindra Singh @ Harman Singh S/o Jeet Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Colony Chak Amritsariya, Police Station City Samana, District Patiala (Punjab) (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/01/2026 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.242/2023 registered at Police Station Sangod, District Kota Rural for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. [2026:RJ-JP:2654] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6638/2025] It is contended that admittedly, petitioners were not apprehended at the spot and contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 202kgs and 815grams has been recovered from an abundant vehicle. It is contended that petitioners have been arrested in this case after a year of registration of FIR. Counsel submit that petitioner- Ajay is in custody since 12.11.2024 and petitioner- Matvindra is in custody since 04.09.2024. It is submitted that seizure officer has already been examined during the course of trial and co-accused Karandeep Singh @ Karn Singh has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is argued that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that petitioners are habitual offenders as two other cases have been registered against petitioner- Ajay @ Sundi under the NDPS Act and two other cases have been registered against petitioner- Matvindra Singh @ Harman Singh, out of which, one is under the NDPS Act. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit versus State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three 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. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2026:RJ-JP:2654] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6638/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the fact that petitioners were not found in exclusive possession of the contraband, as also the fact that co-accused has been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Ajay @ Sundi S/o Suresh, and (2) Matvindra Singh @ Harman Singh S/o Jeet Singh, 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2654] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6638/2025] immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. 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 Court to cancel the bail granted to them 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 these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /27-28