[2026:RJ-JP:6343] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2405/2026 Rajesh @ Khanna S/o Hemraj, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ukhlala, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk (Raj.) (Accused/ Petitioner Is In District Jail Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain Mr. Amit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 10/02/2026 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Rajesh @ Khanna S/o Hemraj seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.74/2025 dated 22.06.2025 registered at P.S. SOP, District-Tonk, for the offence under Sections 8 and 20 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:6343] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2405/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.09.2025, with liberty to file after recording the statement of the search and seizure officer. He further submitted that now the statement of the search and seizure officer, Ghasilal, has been recorded as PW-3 by the trial court. He also referred to the statements of PW-1 Kailash Chandra and PW-2 Jai Singh, both police personnel, and submitted that none of them knew the present petitioner-accused. He further submitted that even at the time of recovery from Rajendra @ Sanwara, the name of the present petitioner was not mentioned as the person from whom “ganja” was procured. He also referred to the FIR/Seizure Memo and the details mentioned in the charge-sheet and submitted that at one place it was mentioned that the ganja was procured from the present petitioner, whereas at another place it has been mentioned that the accused was going to deliver ganja to the present petitioner. He also referred to the recovered quantity and submitted that it is not a case of commercial quantity. No recovery has been effected from the present petitioner. He further submitted that one of the accused has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that several cases were registered against the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:6343] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2405/2026] 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On 22.06.2025, PW-3 Ghansilal, SHO, PS SOP, intercepted a motorcycle bearing No. RJ08 BS 6523. He recovered 5.006 kg of ganja from Rajendra @ Sanwara, the bike rider. On the basis of the Parcha Bayan, FIR No. 74/2025 under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act was registered on 22.06.2025 at PS SOP, District Tonk. During investigation, the police came to know about the involvement of Gopal and the present petitioner and arrayed them as accused under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. Ultimately, a charge-sheet was filed against three persons. The present petitioner is in custody since 07.08.2025 till date. Three witnesses were examined, including PW-3 Ghansilal, and we have considered the statements of all the witnesses. 7. The material on record indicates that a total of six criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, out of which four are under the NDPS Act. The petitioner is regularly involved in cases relating to the NDPS Act. The current case is the fourth case under the NDPS Act. 8. Considering the regular involvement of the present petitioner, it is not a fit case to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 9. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence [2026:RJ-JP:6343] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2405/2026] collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 10. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Rajesh @ Khanna S/o Hemraj is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /24