State Of Rajasthan, Through PP vs Mr. Harshit Kakani &

: Mr. Anurag Chahar with Mr. Harshit Kakani & Mr. Anubhav Gupta for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/05/2025

1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.38/2024 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 8/25 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2025. Now, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:21830] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5305/2025] petitioners were not apprehended at the spot and no recovery has been effected from the exclusive possession of the petitioners. Arguing the case of petitioner Bablu, counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of the fact that he is registered owner of the vehicle from which contraband was allegedly recovered. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record suggesting the fact that petitioner knowingly allowed the co-accused to use his vehicle to carry the contraband. Arguing the case of petitioner Raghuveer Singh, counsel submits that only on the basis of the statement of the co- accused, he has been roped in this case. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record suggesting the fact that petitioner Raghuveer was in possession of the vehicle from which alleged contraband was recovered. Counsel relies upon the order passed on

10.01.2025 by Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.16671/2024 titled as Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit Versus State of Rajasthan wherein after considering the fact that accused has already suffered incarceration of about 1 year and 8 months facility of bail was granted to the accused. Counsel submits that till date, only four witnesses have been examined out of sixteen cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. It is contended that petitioner Bablu is in custody since

25.01.2024 whereas petitioner Raghuveer Singh is in custody since

22.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that huge quantity [2025:RJ-JP:21830] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5305/2025] of contraband has been recovered in this matter thus, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioners.

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. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in different cases wherein after considering the period of custody, benefit of bail has been extended to the accused- petitioners, as also considering the fact that till date, only four witnesses have been examined out of sixteen cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as well as looking to the custody period, 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-petitioners (1) Bablu S/o Jagdish and (2) [2025:RJ-JP:21830] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5305/2025] Raghuveer Singh S/o Devlal shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 them by this Court.

11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. 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. 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 /34 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J