State Of Rajasthan, Through PP vs For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 10/02/2025 Order

1. The instant third application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.374/2023 PS Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur for offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned for the aforesaid offence.

2. Vide order dated 28.11.2024, the previous bail application (No.14754/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording testimony of seizure officer. Now, the statement of the seizure officer has been recorded at trial. Hence, this third application for bail.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel [2025:RJ-JP:6173] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1584/2025] submits that as per the prosecution case, mephedrone (MD) weighing 65 Grams was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner but as per the FSL report dated 16.07.2024, the sample packed in the packet marked X was found to contain Methamphetamine and presence of mephedrone (4-methyl methcathinone) could not be detected. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court towards the statement of seizure officer wherein he came to know that the petitioner was having MD after examining it, on the basis of past experience but in some of the memos prepared on the spot, prior to the search and seizure of the accused petitioner, offence punishable under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act had already been mentioned, which shows that false case has been prepared against the petitioner as it was not possible for the seizure officer to mention specific offence without conducting search and seizure of the accused petitioner. He contends that in cross-examination of PW.4 Shri Shriniwas Jangid, a specific question was put to him that when he did not have any prior information or suspicion regarding any narcotic substance being carried by the petitioner then as to on what basis, in the memos prepared prior to 3 O’ Clock, offence under Section 8/22 of the NDPS Act had been mentioned to which, the witness gave a very weak and casual answer that same had been done inadvertently. The petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2023 and as such, he has already behind the bars for more than one year and one month. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He places reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment passed in the case of Sohrab Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh (Petition (s) [2025:RJ-JP:6173] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-1584/2025] for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7115/2024, decided on

13.08.2024) in which the accused therein was found in possession of 80 grams of MD powder and he had already undergone about one years and four months in jail and facility of bail was granted to him. The commercial quantity of the MD powder is 50 grams. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; trial will take time in its conclusion and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite time period.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that looking to the quantity of the contraband recovered from the petitioner, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.

6. I have considered the contentions. 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.

7. The petitioner is in custody for the last one year and one month and there is a bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future and thus, the fundamental right of the petitioner of speedy trial is also being violated. Prolonged incarceration, generally [2025:RJ-JP:6173] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1584/2025] militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the testimony of the seizure officer; absence of criminal antecedents; period of custody and the fact that trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

9. This third bail application is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Shyam Singh S/o Dashrath Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees 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.

10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded. If breach of any 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. [2025:RJ-JP:6173] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-1584/2025]

11. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. LALIT MOHAN /752 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J