[2026:RJ-JP:1640] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16715/2025 Junaid Ansari @ Jved S/o Shri Khalid Ansari, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Pilkhana Mohalla, Eidgah Road, Ward No. 30, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhalawar, Presently Resides At Rais Bhai Ka Makan, Behind Hero Showroom, In Front Of Football Ground, Police Station Kethun, District Kota (Raj.) (At Present He Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 526/2026 Mohammad Sohel S/o Shri Mohammad Firoj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o House No. 2/310, Van Vihar Colony, Housing Board Delhi Bypass Road, P.S. Galta Gate, Jaipur. (Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asad Ul Haq, Adv., and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.339/2025 registered at Police Station Galtagate, District Jaipur City (North) for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act. [2026:RJ-JP:1640] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16715/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that alleged contraband smack (15.28 gms) has been recovered at the instance of accused-petitioner Mohammad Sohel, which is below commercial quantity. They argue that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They further contend that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged contraband smack has been recovered at the instance of accused- petitioner Mohammad Sohel, which is below commercial quantity and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Junaid Ansari @ Jved S/ o Shri Khalid Ansari, and (2). Mohammad Sohel S/o Shri Mohammad Firoj shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of [2026:RJ-JP:1640] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16715/2025] Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, it is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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. 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 them 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 these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/129-130