[2026:RJ-JP:23424] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6608/2026 Mukesh Garg Son of Shimbhudayal, Resident Of Kasba Narayanpur Tehsil Narayanpur, District Kotputli Behror (Raj.) (Accused In District Jail, Alwar) Accused/Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7190/2026 Chetram Gurjar S/o Shriram Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Raipura Bhaal, P.s Thanagazi, Dist. Alwar (Raj.). (Presently In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia Mr. Siya Ram Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.) Judgment / Order 19/06/2026 1. These misc. bail applications have been filed by the petitioners Mukesh Garg S/o Shimbhudayal and Chetram Gurjar S/o Shriram Gurjar, who were arrested by the Police in connection with the FIR bearing No.0116/2026 dated 07.04.2026 registered at Police Station Thanagazi, Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 15 of the NDPS Act, 1985. [2026:RJ-JP:23424] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6608/2026] 2. Learned counsel submits that the bail applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thanagazi, District Alwar vide its orders dated 23.04.2026 and 28.04.2026 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioners have preferred these bail applications under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023. 3. Learned counsel submits that the Police, after completing the investigation, has filed the charge-sheet and the alleged contraband substance recovered quantified as 2 Kg 56 Grams which is less than the commercial quantity. Learned counsel further submits that as far as the petitioner Mukesh Garg is concerned, he has one criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act of the year 2025, in which the recovered contraband substance quantified was below the commercial quantity (quantified as 98 grams) and the same was bailable as per the NDPS Act and as far as the petitioner-Chetram Gurjar is concerned, he has no criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act in past. In view thereof, learned counsel prays that the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the bail applications. 5. This Court, after considering the contents of the FIR and the fact that the contraband substance alleged to be recovered from the petitioners is below the commercial quantity, charge-sheet has already been filed, trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude, taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case, is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:23424] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6608/2026] 6. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners Mukesh Garg Son of Shimbhudayal and Chetram Gurjar S/o Shriram Gurjar shall be released on bail, provided both of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The petitioners are further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail applications will not affect the trial of the case. 7. In case the petitioners are found involved in case of similar nature after being released on bail, this bail shall stand cancelled without further reference to this Court. 8. It is further directed that in case, the petitioner shall mark his presence before the concerned SHO of the Police Station twice in a month for the entire period of the trial. The SHO shall maintain register to mark presence of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fail to appear twice in any month then the same shall be considered as breach and the bail shall stands cancelled automatically without reference to the Court. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.)),J 71-72/Manish