[2026:RJ-JP:2229] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8278/2025 Rajkumar S/o Chimaram, Aged About 37 Years, Janduo Ki Dhani, Udasar Police Station Guda Malani, Dist Barmer At Present Opposite Jangid Kirana Store, Gandhi Nagar Ganli No 1, Police Station Kotwali Dist Barmer Rajasthan ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Beawar) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8674/2025 Durgaram (Phoji) S/o Biramram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Thakdon Ki Dhani, Akadada Tehsil And Police Station Baytu District Balotra. At Present In Sub Jail, Beawar. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar in CRLMB No.8278/2025 Mr. Harendra Singh in CRLMB No.8674/2025 For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/01/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.108/2025 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. [2026:RJ-JP:2229] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8278/2025] 2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner- Rajkumar submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case with the allegation that the accused from whose possession the alleged contraband has been recovered has made a statement that he has brought this contraband on behest of Rajkumar. 3. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2025 and after his arrest, the Investigating Agency could not recover any substance alleged to be a contraband or he is found to be connected with the contraband seized by the Police. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner- Durgaram (Phoji) submits that he has been falsely implicated in this case with the allegation of conspiracy with the other co- accused whereas, there is no evidence on record except the alleged information given by the co-accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 11.06.2025. 5. Learned counsels also submit that the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter and the trial of the case will take considerable time as there is long list of witnesses i.e. 32. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications and submits that there is an evidence collected by the Police regarding involvement of the accused-petitioners in the crime. She also submits that the accused-petitioners have failed to show the satisfaction required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [2026:RJ-JP:2229] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8278/2025] 7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers. 8. As regards the accused-petitioner-Rajkumar is concerned, the allegation against him is levelled by the prosecution on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, namely, Hemaram from whose possession the contraband was recovered. 9. As per contents of the FIR, Rajkumar is said to have made a whatsapp call to co-accused-Hemaram for loading of the contraband. The contents of FIR do not disclose the fact that the accused-petitioner-Rajkumar himself got loaded the contraband in the vehicle of co-accused-Hemaram. 10. As regards the accused-petitioner-Durgaram (Phoji) is concerned, the only evidence available on record is that the information of the accused-Rajkumar i.e. he has also involved in the conspiracy of committing this offence. 11. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is convinced as regards the requirement under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and taking into consideration the allegations against the accused-petitioners and more particularly the fact that no contraband is said to have been recovered from the possession of the present accused-petitioners and the Police has already completed the investigation, this Court without expressing any [2026:RJ-JP:2229] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8278/2025] opinion on the merits or demerits of the case deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 13. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above shall be enlarged on bail provided, each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /34-35