[2026:RJ-JP:2826] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12334/2025 Aarami @ Aaram Singh S/o Shri Nangu Ram, R/o Badaganv, Police Station Salempur District Dausa Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 21/01/2026 1. The petitioners have preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in FIR No.69/2025 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Karauli for the offence under Sections 8 and 20 of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegation against the petitioner pertains to the supply of contraband goods, that too below the commercial quantity. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. As per the FIR and the material available on record, no case is made out against the present petitioner. However, the Police without any evidence have implicated the petitioner as an accused. The petitioner has been [2026:RJ-JP:2826] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12334/2025] impleaded solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused. He further submits that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR; therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. 4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application of the petitioner and submits that there are allegations against the present petitioner of being involved in the offence, and that FIR itself does not give any impression that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that twelve cases have been reported against the present petitioner as criminal antecedents, out of which one case is of a similar nature. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and in light of submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and prima facie material indicating involvement of the petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Chandan/11