State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 07/07/2025 Order

1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2024 registered at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 04.03.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, both the aforementioned witnesses [2025:RJ-JP:24832] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8422/2025] have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that according to the prosecution case, during the course of investigation in other FIR No.92/2024 registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.), it was disclosed by accused namely Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu that contraband Ganja is lying in the house and vehicle (Swift Car) of the accused petitioner and if search is made, same may be recovered. Upon receiving such information, police searched the house of the petitioner where a car was found parked outside the house, which was found unlocked. Counsel submits that according to the prosecution story, contraband Ganja weighing 29 kgs and 900 gms was recovered from the car. Counsel submits that on the basis of said recovery, present FIR No.94/2024 was registered at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur wherein during the course of investigation, arrest of the petitioner was made on 02.07.2024. Counsel submits that apart from this, petitioner has also been implicated in aforesaid FIR No.92/2024 registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur. Counsel submits that it has been admitted by the Investigating Officer as well as Seizure Officer that they failed to find out the owner of the Swift Car wherein alleged contraband was recovered by the Seizure Officer. Counsel submits that it has also been admitted by both the witnesses that no recovery has been made from the house of the petitioner and in these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that no recovery has been made from the [2025:RJ-JP:24832] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8422/2025] exclusive possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that it was also alleged by the prosecution that during the course of search, an Aadhar Card belonging to the petitioner was recovered but both the witnesses have clearly stated that no seizure of the said Aadhar Card has been made. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 10.01.2025 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 despite the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act were registered against him. The petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only two witnesses have been examined out of eighteen cited prosecution witnesses. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that Ganja weighing 29 kgs and 900 gms has been recovered in this matter therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

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 [2025:RJ-JP:24832] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8422/2025] 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, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer, especially the admission made by thee witnesses that no recovery of Aadhar Card has been made during investigation; failure of prosecution in finding out the owner of the car from where contraband was recovered; considering the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shambulal Gurjar @ Rohit (supra) and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion 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-petitioner- Baubi @ Baubi Khan S/o Shaukin Khan 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 Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to [2025:RJ-JP:24832] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8422/2025] 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. 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.

11. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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 /45 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J