[2026:RJ-JP:2867] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15463/2025 Kamlesh S/o Nandilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Dehlanpur, Police Station Sarthal District Baran, Rajasthan. (Peti- tioner Is In Sub Jail Chhabra). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan Ms. Drishti Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/01/2026 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.126/2023 registered at Police Station Sarthal, District Baran for the offences punishable under under Section 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act & Section 3/25 of Arms Act & Section 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that admittedly, no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel contends that except police interrogation of the co- accused persons and some call details, no evidence is available on [2026:RJ-JP:2867] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15463/2025] record against the petitioner. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of commercial quantity, thus looking to the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Kamlesh S/o Nandilal 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 [2026:RJ-JP:2867] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15463/2025] 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. 7. 7. It is made clear that the accused petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in the concerned local police station in the first week of every month till conclusion of trial. 8. 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, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. 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 the petitioner by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /13