The court granted bail based on the lengthy duration of custody and the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2024, registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara, for offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the prosecution, Ganja weighing 27.200 Kgs was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the present petitioner on 15.03.2024.

4. Drawing attention of this Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that recovered contraband (Ganja) does not fall within the definition of “Ganja” because it consists of leaves, seeds, buds and stalks of the cannabis plants. Learned counsel further submitted that the leaves and stalks of the cannabis plants are expressly excluded from the definition of Ganja. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the Central Government notification S.O. 527 dated 16^th July, 1996 specifying small quantity and commercial quantity of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, it does not prescribe commercial and small quantity of cannabis plant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused persons namely Kishan Lal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10100/2024) and Sannwra @ Pran (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10840/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.03.2024; the challan against him has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, a huge quantity of contraband (Ganja) was recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner and therefore, till receipt of the FSL report, the petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons namely Kishan Lal and Sannwra @ Pran have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2024.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co- accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.03.2024; the trial against the present petitioner is not likely to be concluded in near future. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Kalu S/o Shri Gokul arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2024, registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.