[2026:RJ-JP:4790] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 13574/2025 Trilok S/o Chiranjilal, R/o Lalkhan, Akhaipura Mohalla, Police Station Kotwali, District Alwar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banvari Lal Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/01/2026 1. The instant third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.988/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/22 of the NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Counsel submits that testimony of [2026:RJ-JP:4790] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13574/2025] aforesaid witnesses have been recorded and now, this third bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also contended that there is major contradiction in the testimony of Seizure Officer and Investigating Officer. Counsel submits that compliance of provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act has also not been done in the instant case. He contends that as per the prosecution case, total 80 bottles of Onerex Codedine phosphate & triprolidine hydrochloride syrup 100 ML were recovered from the possession of the petitioner and as per the report of Drug Controls Officer, 10 MG of Codeine Phosphate substance was found in each 5 ML. Counsel submits that total substance codeine phosphate found is 22.4 gm, which is less than commercial quantity of 1 kg. Counsel submits that there is no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner. He submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. The petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2024, thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that total 80 bottles of Onerex Codedine phosphate & triprolidine hydrochloride syrup 100 ML were recovered from the possession of the petitioner, in which commercial quantity of codeine phosphate substance was found, therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Moreover, there is two more case registered against the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:4790] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13574/2025] 5. I have considered the contentions and perused the material available on record. 6. 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 for meticulous examination of the material collected during investigation. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature of offence; 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. 8. The third Bail Application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Trilok S/o Chiranjilal 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 [2026:RJ-JP:4790] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13574/2025] court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. 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. 10. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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. 11. 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. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 /752