The court's decision on interim bail applications is influenced by the specific grounds presented in the bail applications and the nature of accusations in the FIR.

JUDGMENT

1. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7084/2021: (Kailash S/o Dhanraj Dhakad v. State of Rajasthan) The present interim bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.09/2019, SOG Jaipur Police Station, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conferencing stated that the present interim bail has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim bail for a period of one month on the ground of illness of the petitioner's wife; and as per medical advice, operation of the petitioner's wife is necessary, therefore, petitioner may be granted the benefit of interim bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has verified the facts and documents submitted in support of the interim bail application by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present interim bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be allowed and the accused-petitioner deserves to be enlarged on interim bail for a period of ten days.

6. Consequently, the interim bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that instead of thirty days, the petitioner, Kailash S/o Dhanraj Dhakad arrested in connection with FIR No.09/2019, SOG Jaipur Police Station, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on interim bail for a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of his actual release; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs only) and two sound and solvent surety bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only) [one surety shall be of family member/close relative] each to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent, Chittorgarh.

7. The concerned Jail Superintendent shall be at liberty to impose any other usual terms and conditions for ensuring surrender of the petitioner in prison, after expiry of the period of ten days, as granted under the instant order. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7083/2021: (Ishwar S/o Bhanwar Lal Dhakad v. State of Rajasthan) The present interim bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.09/2019, SOG Jaipur Police Station, District Chittorgarh, registered for the offence punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing stated that father of the petitioner expired on 26.01.2021; petitioner is the only son in the family and all the last rites (Asthi-Visarjan) are required to be performed within a short period of time, therefore, interim bail for a period of one month may be granted to the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that there is no specific pleading in this bail application that the accused- petitioner is the only male member of the family but stated that the counsel appeared on behalf of the accused-petitioner before the learned Trial Court has mentioned a ground regarding non- availability of any other male member in the family while presenting the bail application before the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court has not considered the ground and rejected the bail application by observing that the accused- petitioner had attended the funeral of his father by the earlier order