[2025:RJ-JP:1289] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7847/2024 Mangilal S/o Jaggannath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Gopalpura Mahua Kho Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/01/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.91/2024 registered at Police Station Ranpur, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15 & 8/18 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that according to the prosecution case, co-accused person of this case was found in possession of 19 Kgs of poppy husk. It is submitted that police wants to arrest the petitioner solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused person. He submits that interrogation of co-accused person shall not be used against the petitioner as same is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of [2025:RJ-JP:1289] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-7847/2024] Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this matter. He thus, prays that benefit of pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that it is evident from the investigation report that petitioner was in contact with the co- accused person through his mobile phone & his mobile number has also been provided by the co-accused person in his interrogation. He thus prays that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in this matter. 4. Heard. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that petitioner was in contact with the co-accused person through his mobile phone and his mobile number has also been provided by the co-accused person, I am not inclined to extend the indulgence of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations 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 GAUTAM JAIN /134