Judicature For Rajasthan Bench High Court · 2025

: Mr. Majhar Hussain, Adv., with For Respondent(s) Ms. Sonia Saini, Adv. : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP & Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 31/10/2025 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.192/2023 registered at Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 and 8/25 of the NDPS Act.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of seizure office. Now, seizure officer has been [2025:RJ-JP:43759] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12854/2025] examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of about two year and six months. He argues that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only seven witnesses have been examined out of twenty seven cited prosecution witnesses. He further argues that admittedly in this case alleged contraband was seized on

11.04.2023, but samples have been deposited in the FSL on

12.05.2023 almost after a delay of one month. He further submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been followed by the Investigating Agency which vitiate the entire trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and six months and Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken the view in the matter of Devendra Kumar Mishra @ Bade Guru vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.14639/2023 that on the ground of period of incarceration suffered by accused, bail application under the NDPS Act can be considered for grant. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhulal Gurjar @ Rohit vs. State of Rajasthan in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.16671/2024 wherein after taking note of the fact that three other cases under the NDPS Act have been registered against the petitioner, facility of bail was granted to the [2025:RJ-JP:43759] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12854/2025] accused considering the period of incarceration. It is submitted that petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and he is ready to abide by all such conditions which may be imposed by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that huge quantity of the contraband has been recovered in the case and therefore, considering the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioner.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

7. 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.

8. 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 observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments wherein considering the period of incarceration suffered by the accused, [2025:RJ-JP:43759] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12854/2025] facility of bail has been granted, as also considering the fact that petitioner is languishing in jail since 11.04.2023, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and considering the lacunae in the present case pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner and trial will take considerable 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.

9. Thus, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner - Sharif Khan S/o Shafi Khan, shall be released on bail provided he shall furnish 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.

10. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other similar offence during currency of the bail. He shall mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month till currency of trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall not switch off his phone for longer period.

11. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:43759] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12854/2025] SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

13. 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.

14. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. MADAN/8 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J