[2025:RJ-JP:49065] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13388/2025 Rahul Kasotiya S/o Om Prakash Kasotiya, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Plat No. 30/41/7, Jain Mandir, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Police Station - Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Jagdish, SHO, PS Borada, Ajmer HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 03/12/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 133/2025 registered at Police Station Arain District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is a young man aged 23 years. It is submitted that recovered quantity in question i.e. 130.44 Kg is much more than the commercial quantity. Howsoever, it is submitted that vide Annexure-3, applicant has given the vehicle in question on rent on 01.09.2025 and the date of incidence is 05.09.2025. It is further submitted that applicant is not connected to the alleged incident even remotely and is rather falsely implicated in the present case [2025:RJ-JP:49065] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13388/2025] by Investigating Agency. It is also submitted that applicant is in custody ever since 14.09.2025 and there are no criminal antecedents registered against him. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Investigating Officer has marked presence in the Court and has submitted that contract is inadmissible document as same is not registered and created as an afterthought. It is further submitted that investigation is ongoing and charge-sheet is not yet filed. 4. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that recovered quantity of contraband is more than the commercial quantity; that charge sheet is yet to be filed and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant. 5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/60