[2026:RJ-JP:3864] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 353/2026 Kaila Prasad S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Karnawar, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 28/01/2026 1. The accused-petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No. 0035/2025 registered with the Police Station Baswa, District Dausa for offences punishable under Section 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. 2. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the Court vide order dated 13.01.2026, directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and in view of the direction of the Court, the accused-petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and has joined the investigation and, therefore, the accused-petitioner is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery. The learned counsel further submits that accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further [2026:RJ-JP:3864] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-353/2026] submits that the allegations against the accused-petitioner is that the person namely; Hajarilal, from whose possession the alleged contraband i.e. Ganja, weighing 1.266 kg was recovered, is said to have received the said contraband from the present accused- petitioner. It is also submitted that the accused-petitioner has been made an accused in this case on the basis of statement of co-accused and as per the criminal jurisprudence, the evidence of co-accused cannot be read against an accused. He also submits that the accused-petitioner is suffering from vulnerable disease and is always ready to cooperate in the investigation. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and verifies the fact that the accused-petitioner has joined the investigation. He further submits that as per the report of the Investigating Officer, the investigation from the accused- petitioner has already been completed. He also submits that the co-accused Hajarilal was caught with contraband Ganja, weighing 1.266 kg and during his interrogation, he has stated that he has received the said contraband from the present accused-petitioner. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rambali Sahni V/s State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal No. 105/2026 delivered on 07.01.2026, has observed as under:- “7. Turning our attention to the merits of the case, we notice at the cost of the repetition that appellant herein has been arraigned as an accused on the basis [2026:RJ-JP:3864] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-353/2026] of the co-accused statement. As to the actual complicity of the appellant is an issue which will have to be thrashed out after trial and as such the appellant would be entitled for being released on bail. 8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and though we restore the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugraj Singh V/s Stat eof Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 3640/2025 delivered on 20.08.2025, has also observed as under:- “4. The case of the appellant is that nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellant but he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused who has suffered recovery. It is also the case of the appellant that earlier also, he was similarly implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co- accused wherein he was granted the protection of Anticipatory Bail. 7. It is not the case that the appellant did not join investigation. Merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-co- operation on the part of accused. Otherwise also, in the Counter Affidavit, it is not stated that any effort was made to trace out the mobile number of the appellant and collect the call detail records or that any raid was carried to find out whether he is in possession of any incriminating material. In such circumstances, and having regard to the fact that earlier also the appellant was similarly made an accused and was accorded similar protection, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by making the interim order absolute subject to the following two conditions: (A) The appellant shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency; and (B) He shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned along with an undertaking that he shall not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence.” [2026:RJ-JP:3864] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-353/2026] 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case as detailed above and so also the material fact that the accused-petitioner has already joined the investigation, this Court deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. The Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the accused- petitioner is accordingly allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa in F.I.R. No. 0035/2025 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused- petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided of him furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /202