[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Baubi @ Baubi Khan S/O Shaukin Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:24832) on 7 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:24832]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
8422/2025
Baubi @ Baubi Khan S/o Shaukin Khan, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Mangraul At Present Bagchauli Lodha, P.s. Maniya, District
Dholpur (Rajasthan) (Accused Is Presently Confined In District
Jail Dholpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : 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
Order
07/07/2025
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dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 04.03.2025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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:33:11 AM)
[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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:33:11 AM)
[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.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. 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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:33:11 AM)
[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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:33:11 AM)
[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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /45
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:33:11 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link