[2026:RJ-JP:4338] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1846/2026 Bablu S/o Ghisalal, R/o Rayte, Police Station Begu, District Chittorgarh. (Accused Confined In District Jail At Tonk). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2026 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.289/2025 registered at Police Station Newai, District Tonk for offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act. The investigation in this matter has been made against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the recovered contraband i.e. 17.660 kg poppy husk is below commercial quantity and the same has been recovered from the possession of accused Labhchand and not from the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis testimony of accused Labhchand and with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. Counsel submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. Counsel [2026:RJ-JP:4338] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1846/2026] submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and the petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest, and thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as two more cases of similar nature are registered against him. He submits that looking to the gravity of offence and the fact that the investigation against the petitioner is still pending, the benefit of bail should not be granted to the accused petitioner. 4. I have considered the submissions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the fact that investigation is still pending against the petitioner; as well as looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki / 37