[2026:RJ-JP:9565] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5686/2025 Kamlesh S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Hanuman Mandir Ke Pas, Sekud, Police Station Sarthal, Distt. Baran (Raj.) (Petitioner is In Central Jail Kota). ---Accused-Applicant Versus The State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shazida Bano for Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP with Mr. Vinod Sharma Mr. Sapan Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 06/03/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 138/2024 registered at Police Station Deoli Majhi District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. 2. On 18.11.2025, following order was passed which reads as under: "1. Learned counsel for the accused–applicant has submitted that the applicant has been in custody from approximately one and a half years. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant. Learned counsel has also argued that the inventory was drawn in the absence of independent witnesses, in violation of Section 52A and Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as well as other applicable provisions of the BNSS. [2026:RJ-JP:9565] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5686/2025] 2. It is further submitted that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, prolonged incarceration and procedural violations of a mandatory nature are to be considered seriously while examining the prayer for grant of bail. To substantiate the said averments learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Kamlesh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1388, Rambabu Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025, Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4648/2024, Asrafulo @ Bali @ Asraful Ali Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in SLP (Crl.) No(s). 3346/2025, Arsad @ Arsad Alam Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1148/2025, Jabir Kha Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2993/2025, Dhiraj Halder @ Santu @ Shantanu Vs. The State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5233/2025, Ajay Khatri Vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1228/2025 & Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 11050. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that two persons were apprehended with commercial quantity of the contraband. It is further submitted that the accused was found in physical possession of the substance and, therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the bail application be rejected. 4. Heard. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is also directed to call for the case diary in the matter. 6. List the matter on 21.11.2025 in the supplementary cause list." 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that the applicant is sole bread earner of the family, aged about 35 years. It is further submitted that the applicant is in custody since two years. It is also submitted that there are no criminal [2026:RJ-JP:9565] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5686/2025] antecedents pending against the applicant. Learned counsel has further contended that the inventory was drawn in the absence of independent witnesses, in violation of Section 52A and Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio laid down in Kamlesh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1388, Rambabu Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5648/2025. Reliance in regard of the aforesaid is also placed upon the dictum encapsulated in Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 11050. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor is not able to refute the fact that the applicant is in custody for a period of approximately two years and that there are no criminal antecedents pending against the applicant. It is submitted that as the accused was apprehended with commercial quantity of the contraband, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in the instant matter, and therefore, the accused is not entitled to the concession of bail. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, considering that the applicant is sole bread earner of the family, aged about 35 years; that the applicant is in custody for a period of approximately two years; that there are no criminal antecedents pending against the applicant and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant and enlarge him on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:9565] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5686/2025] 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant Kamlesh S/o Mohanlal shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/8