Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Pawan Sharma S/O Shri Tarachand Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:26887) on 18 July, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:26887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
8580/2025
Pawan Sharma S/o Shri Tarachand Sharma, Aged About 52
Years, R/o Ward No. 38, Near Pinjarpole, Riddhi-Siddhi Colony,
Laxmangarh, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.).
(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
Mr. Tapesh Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
18/07/2025
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.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dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 25.11.2024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.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:51:37 AM)
[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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:51:37 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26887] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8580/2025]
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
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
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:51:37 AM)
[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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /34
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:51:38 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link