Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr reported in

: Mr. Mohd. Shakir Khan with Mr. Ajay Kumar Sain For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Anuj Joshi, CO, Cyber cell, Bundi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 30/05/2025 Order

1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.84/2022 registered at Police Station Dabi, District Bundi (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 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 for non-prosecution vide order dated 27.07.2023. Thereafter second bail application was preferred on behalf of petitioner and same was also dismissed vide order dated

28.03.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the Seizure Officer. Now, Seizure Officer [2025:RJ-JP:22781] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14797/2024] has been examined during the course of trial thus, this third bail application has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till February, 2025, only 1 witness was examined out of 50 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of Seizure Officer that there is gross violation of mandatory provision of Section 52A of NDPS Act as prosecution failed to draw the sample in presence or supervision of the Magistrate. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgments passed in the cases of: (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr reported in (2016) 3 SCC 3749, (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC online SC 862 and (3) Simarnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.l.) No. 1958 of

2023. Counsel submits that samples were drawn by the Seizure Officer himself and same was sent to the FSL. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.04.2022 and as such he has suffered incarceration of more than three years. Counsel submits that rights of the petitioner to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being seriously infringed. [2025:RJ-JP:22781] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14797/2024]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that commercial quantity of contraband 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. Prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the embargo contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

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 fact that as per the material available on record, there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 52A NDPS Act as the samples were drawn in violation of the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in [2025:RJ-JP:22781] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14797/2024] the case of Mohanlal (Supra), as also considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since April, 2022 and as such he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application.

9. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Vinod S/o Jamna Lal 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.

10. 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.

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. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:22781] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14797/2024] this regard.

13. 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 /423 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J