[2026:RJ-JP:750] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14304/2025 Bhajanlal S/o Shri Devaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bhakrasani, Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer, Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma with Mr. Jai Hada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/01/2026 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.148/2022 registered at Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that provisions of Section 52A of NDPS Act have not been complied with in the instant case. It is submitted that alleged contraband was recovered on 06.05.2022 while inventory of the seized contraband was prepared on 10.10.2022 i.e., after about five months. Learned counsel contends that samples drawn before the jurisdictional magistrate were not sent to FSL and samples [2026:RJ-JP:750] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14304/2025] drawn by seizure officer were deposited in the FSL on 10.05.2022. She argues that only two witnesses are to be examined and nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioner. She relies upon the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5397/2019 titled as Ghanshyam Sharma versus State of Rajasthan wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:- “Though Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that the trial is almost at the verge of completion, in our view both the petitioners are to be given an opportunity to put forth their defence”. 3. Learned counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. She submits that petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2022 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of about 3 years and 8 months. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other [2026:RJ-JP:750] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14304/2025] cases have been registered against him. He further submits that trial is at fag end as only two prosecution witnesses are remaining to be examined. 5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of “Kulwant Singh versus State of Punjab” reported in 1991 Suppl (1) SCC 504, has extended the benefit of bail where custody period of accused was more than two years. In the case of “Amit Singh Moni versus State of Himachal Pradesh” benefit of bail was granted to the accused after considering the fact that accused had suffered incarceration of about two years and seven months. In the case of Ghanshyam Sharma (supra) benefit of bail was granted to the accused where the matter was fixed for defence evidence and in the case of “Abdul Majeed Lone versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir” benefit of bail was granted to the accused after considering the fact that accused had suffered incarceration of about two years and five months. In the case of “Tapan Das versus Union of India” benefit of bail was granted to the accused after considering the fact that accused had suffered incarceration of about four years. 7. The petitioner has already suffered incarceration of about three years and eight months. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. [2026:RJ-JP:750] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14304/2025] 8. 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. 9. I have considered the contentions. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforecited cases, so also considering the custody period of the petitioner which is about 3 years and 8 months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this bail application. 11. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Bhajanlal S/o Shri Devaram, 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 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:750] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14304/2025] Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. If breach of any 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 the petitioner by this Court. 15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 16. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /19