[2026:RJ-JP:4588] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17075/2025 Bijendra Singh son of Gyan Singh, aged about 32 years, resident of Nisura, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli, Raj. (At present confined in Sub Jail Hindaun City). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Timan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP & Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/01/2026 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.307/2025 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Karauli (Raj.) for offence punishable under Sections 8/21, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act and Section 111(2)(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged recovered contraband (Smack) weighing 13.80 gms, is below commercial quantity. Counsel submits that though, in the impugned order, one case of NDPS has been shown registered against the petitioner but according to the information available, said case is not under the NDPS Act. Counsel submits that no [2026:RJ-JP:4588] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-17075/2025] other case of NDPS Act has been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.12.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that three other cases have been registered against the petitioner. 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 petitioner, as also the fact that alleged recovered contraband is below commercial quantity and trial will take considerable 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Bijendra Singh son of Gyan Singh 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 Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. Learned trial Court is directed to first verify the arguments of [2026:RJ-JP:4588] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-17075/2025] the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the registration of other offence under the NDPS Act and only thereafter, accept the bail bonds. If any other case is found under the NDPS Act against the petitioner except the present one, learned trial Court is directed not to accept the bail bonds. 8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter 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. 10. 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 him 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 the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /78