[2026:RJ-JP:743] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12830/2025 Kanakam Uma Mahesh S/o Shri Kanakam Laxman, aged about 33 Years, R/o Plot No. 479, Flat No.301, Banjara Hills, Hydrabad, Telangana. ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/01/2026 1. This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in connection with FIR No.52/2021 registered at Police Station Ghar, District Tonk (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly, no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co-accused who was found in possession of contraband. Counsel submits that at the time of alleged recovery, petitioner was in custody in another case. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by [2026:RJ-JP:743] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12830/2025] sending the petitioner behind the bar. Hence, this pre-arrest bail may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that matter pertains to recovery of 84 kgs of Ganja which is commercial quantity and therefore, looking to the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS Act, bail should not be granted to the petitioner and besides this, petitioner is habitual offender as fourteen other cases have been registered against him. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in four cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that matter pertains to recovery of 84 kgs of Ganja which is commercial quantity, as also considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to extend the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /16