The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar Mr. Kapil Nagayach For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 13/05/2025 Order

1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.232/2023 registered at Police Station Bhinay, District Kekri (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2024 as learned counsel for the petitioner was intended to move fresh bail application. After rejection of first bail application, four witnesses including Seizure [2025:RJ-JP:20623] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4488/2025] Officer have been examined before the learned trial court. Hence this second bail application.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that from the testimony of Seizure Officer Nahar Singh (PW.1) as well as Dashrath (PW.3), who was the Special Messenger of the information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act sent to immediate superior police officer, it is clear that compliance of provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act was not made property and it was just an eye-wash attempt by the investigating agency. It appears from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and record that information received from the secret informer with regard to the illegal drug trafficking was entered into police roznamcha on

18.08.2023 at 05:18 PM and same was sent to SP, Kekri and Circle Officer, Circlr Kekri by Special Messenger. The special messenger Dashrath left the police station at 05:36 PM and just after six minutes, at 05:42 PM, same was received in the office of S.P. Kekri. From the testimony of Special Messenger - Dashrath, it is clear that Circle Office, Kekri and office of SP, Kekri is at a distance of fifty kms from police station Bhinay and that both S.P. Kekri and Circle Officer, Kekri were not present in their respective officer between 5 to 10 PM on 18.08.2023. In his cross- examination, he told that he left police Station at about 10:00- 10:30 PM and the office of circle officer, Circle Kekri as well as Superintendent of Police, Kekri is about 50 Kms away from Police Station Bhinay. He also admitted that circle officer was not present at police station at the relevant time. Counsel submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:20623] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4488/2025] said witness PW.3 Dashrath is also incharge of Malkhana and in physical verification, contraband weighing 794 kilograms were found missing/lost for which separate FIR has been registered against the said witness. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the seal which was used in seizing contraband was allegedly destroyed at the place of recovery but subsequently, in some other case, same seal has been used by the same police officer for which he tried to explain that fresh seal was prepared. Counsel submits that it is evident from the record that pieces of destroyed seal was neither handed-over to other witnesses nor deposited in the malkhana. It is submitted that till date only 4 witnesses have been examined out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses and thus trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. There are no criminal antecedents of similar nature against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel places reliance on an order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Siyaram Gurjar @ Gurja vs State of West Bengal (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s.) 3401/2025) wherein the accused therein who has already served sentence of more than one and half years, has been granted benefit of bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of commercial quantity of contraband and considering the riquor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material [2025:RJ-JP:20623] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4488/2025] available on record.

6. So far as Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it 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. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner; especially the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner with respect to information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act; absence of criminal antecedents; period of custody and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application.

8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Chandra Prakash S/o Magnaram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that [2025:RJ-JP:20623] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4488/2025] 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.

9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

11. 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.

12. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /31 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J