[2026:RJ-JP:12116] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4286/2026 Mukesh Kumar S/o Rodulal, aged about 35 years, resident of Durjanpura Police Station Ghatoli at present Krishi Mandi Ke Piche Maruti Nagar Aklera Police Station Aklera District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At present confined in Sub District Jail, Aklera District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/03/2026 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.11/2026 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/25 of NDPS Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this case for offences punishable under Sections 8/21 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2026:RJ-JP:12116] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4286/2026] 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the prosecution case, petitioner was found in possession of 10grams of Smack which is marginally above the small quantity. Counsel submits that it is also evident that the search and seizure was not effected in the presence of independent witnesses and both witnesses of the seizure are police personnels. Counsel submits that though charge-sheet has been filed in this matter but same has been filed without obtaining FSL report therefore in absence of FSL report, it cannot be presumed that petitioner was found in possession of Smack. Counsel submits that though there are two criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature but in both cases, quantity recovered from the petitioner is intermediate quantity. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2026 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as two other cases of similar nature have been registered against him. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also [2026:RJ-JP:12116] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4286/2026] considering the fact that the contraband allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner is marginally above the small quantity, so also considering the fact that till date, FSL report, has not been obtained by the prosecution, despite the fact that FSL report is key evidence in NDPS cases 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 the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Mukesh Kumar S/o Rodulal 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. 8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that the petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period. [2026:RJ-JP:12116] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4286/2026] 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 /274