[2026:RJ-JP:82] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13939/2025 Narendra S/o Bhuralal, Age About 31 Years, R/o Bardavda, Police Station Chhipabarod, Dist. Baran Raj. (Petitioner is in Sub Jail Beawar). ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 17135/2025 Rahul son of Mahendra Kumar, aged 28 Years, resident of Sagar- wala Police Station Chunavad District Shri Ganganagar (At present in Sub Jail Beawar.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Jaswant Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/01/2026 1. These bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.228/2025 registered at Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Beawar (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. [2026:RJ-JP:82] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13939/2025] 2. Petitioner- Narendra has filed fresh bail application before this Court. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner- Rahul was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 17.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge- sheet has been filed in this matter thus, second bail application has been filed on behalf of petitioner- Rahul. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Narendra submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle in which contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 92kgs and 760grams was being carried by the co-accused persons. Counsel submits that it is apparent from the charge-sheet that petitioner got injured and therefore, vehicle was handed over by him to the co-accused persons and he was not having any knowledge about transportation of contraband in his vehicle. Counsel has relied upon the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khairul SK versus The State of West Bengal, arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13282/2023, wherein, in almost identical facts and circumstances, facility of bail was granted to the accused by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Rahul submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co-accused persons who were found in possession of the contraband. Learned counsel has [2026:RJ-JP:82] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13939/2025] relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. Counsel submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is further submitted that petitioner- Rahul is in custody since 27.06.2025 and petitioner- Narendra is in custody since 26.09.2025. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that co-accused persons of this case were found in possession of contraband (Poppy Husk) weighing 92kgs and 760grams which falls under the category of commercial quantity therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the contentions and perused the material available on record. 7. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:82] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13939/2025] investigation. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the fact that petitioners were not found in possession of the contraband, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 9. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Narendra S/o Bhuralal and (2) Rahul son of Mahendra Kumar 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 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. 10. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioners are further directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. [2026:RJ-JP:82] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13939/2025] 11. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the 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. 12. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. 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 LALIT MOHAN /22-23