[2026:RJ-JP:3977] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9161/2025 Sunil S/o Babulal, R/o Jambeshwar Colony, Saran Nagar, Police Station Banar, Jodhpur (Accused Presently Confined In Jail, Beawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar Gill, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/01/2026 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.454/2024, registered by the Saket Nagar, District Beawar for offences punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. During investigation, offence punishable under Section 8/29 of NDPS has been found proved against the petitioner. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused who was found in possession of contraband i.e. 339.240 kgs of poppy husk. Counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he provided the vehicle to co-accused from which contraband was [2026:RJ-JP:3977] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9161/2025] recovered. The petitioner has been implicated in this case only with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed against co-accused from whom recovery of contraband was made. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2025. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that co-accused of this case was found in possession of contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 339.240 kgs which falls under the category of commercial quantity therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, there is one more case registered against the petitioner of similar nature of offence. 4. I have considered the contentions and perused the material available on record. 5. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it does not create an absolute embargo for grant of bail. Further, while considering an application for grant of bail, it is not required for the Court to record positive finding that the accused is not guilty. The only requirement of law is that the Court would look at the material in a broad manner and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The satisfaction which courts are expected to record i.e, the accused may not be guilty is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call [2026:RJ-JP:3977] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9161/2025] for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 6. 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 petitioner was not found in possession of the contraband; as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed against co-accused from whom recovery of contraband was made; so also the fact that 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, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail application. 7. The Bail Application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Sunil S/o Babulal shall be released on bail provided he 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 and 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. 8. 8. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his [2026:RJ-JP:3977] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9161/2025] presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner 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 Manoj Solanki / 17