State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 18/07/2025 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.123/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/20 & 8/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 25.11.2024 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Seizure Officer as well as Investigating Officer. Now, Seizure Officer has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:26887] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8580/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly, no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case simply on the basis of the fact that some amount was transferred by him in the account of co-accused Rajendra who was found in possession of the alleged contraband. Counsel submits that after considering the fact that on earlier occasion, two other cases under the NDPS Act were also registered against the petitioner, learned trial Court refused to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. Counsel submits that now, in one case, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 09.07.2025. 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 17.08.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. 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 there is no change in the circumstances, after dismissal of the first bail application. He further submits that the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, benefit of bail should not be granted to the [2025:RJ-JP:26887] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8580/2025] 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 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, especially the fact that no contraband has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the fact that in one previous case registered under the NDPS Act, petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dated 09.07.2025, as also 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- Pawan Sharma S/o Shri [2025:RJ-JP:26887] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8580/2025] Tarachand Sharma 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 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 /34 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J