[2026:RJ-JP:22721] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 6570/2026 Kushal Singh S/o Sodan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Arniya Police Station Mishroli District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Sub-District Jail, Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 8274/2026 Gopal Luhar S/o Radheshyam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Babulda, Police Station Bhanpura, District Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Bhawanimandi) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv., and Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/05/2026 1. These third bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.254/2025 registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar for offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. [2026:RJ-JP:22721] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6570/2026] 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 29.08.2025. Thereafter, second bail applications were filed on behalf of the petitioners however, they were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, both the witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, these third bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner- Kushal Singh submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of escorting the vehicle in which accused persons were carrying the contraband. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Gopal Luhar submits that the petitioner was not in exclusive possession of the contraband and was a mere passenger in the loading auto. 4. Counsel submit that seizure was made on 30.05.2025 at around 10:00 A.M. however, no independent witness was associated during the search and seizure proceedings. Counsel submit that association of the independent witnesses contemplated under Section 103 of the BNSS (Corresponding to Section 100 of the Cr.P.C) is not a mere formality and concerned officer is required to make all endeavour to associate the independent witnesses from the same vicinity. He cannot escape from his obligation merely by saying that a person refused to [2026:RJ-JP:22721] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6570/2026] become an independent witness and if any person refuses to become a witness, his name should be recorded and proper action should be initiated against him for disobeying the order of the public servant. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel argue that the petitioners are in custody since 30.05.2026 and further custody of the petitioners will not serve any fruitful purpose. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were found in possession of the contraband (poppy husk) weighing 89.350 kgs, which falls under the category of commercial quantity. Thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioners. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Section 37 of the NDPS Act 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 investigation. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned [2026:RJ-JP:22721] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6570/2026] counsel for the parties, especially considering 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 which is 30.05.2026, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the third bail applications. 9. These third bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- 1. Kushal Singh S/o Sodan Singh and 2. Gopal Luhar S/o Radheshyam shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 11. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 12. 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 the petitioners by this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:22721] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6570/2026] 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 the bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 10-11/MADAN