[2026:RJ-JP:2074] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 17086/2025 Ranjeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dogadi Ka Bas, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar, (Raj.) Presently R/o Sardar Colony, Gali No. 08, Sector 16, Rohini, New Delhi, K.N. Katju Marg, Delhi. (At Present Lodge At District Jail, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav with Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/01/2026 1. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025. Thus, the present second bail application has been preferred under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.68/2023 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. During course of investigation, charge- sheet has been filed in this matter for the offences under Sections 8 & 20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. He submits that the first [2026:RJ-JP:2074] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-17086/2025] bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025. He submits that according to the prosecution case, alleged contraband (Ganja) weighing 20.950 kgs was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and co- accused and the said alleged recovered contraband is marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity, i.e., 20 kgs. He further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused- Rajesh Jangid has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, and the petitioner is in custody since long, thus, on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, the second bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of second bail application and submits that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered in this matter, therefore, the benefit of bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 4. Heard and perused the charge-sheet along with case diary. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that the recovered contraband is marginally above the prescribed commercial quantity, and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the co-accused, whose case is almost similar to the case of the petitioner and has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, while relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru [2026:RJ-JP:2074] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-17086/2025] vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 wherein it was held that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the accused considering the period of incarceration. Furthermore, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about two years, and out of a total of 22 witnesses only 5 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial will take considerable time, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner- Ranjeet Singh S/o Baldev Singh in connection with FIR No.68/2023 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. [2026:RJ-JP:2074] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-17086/2025] 7. 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. 8. Concerned SHO shall record the presence 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 him 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 (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-2