Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19410 (RAJ)

TAJMAMUL S/O MUBARIK HASAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/14344/2025 · 2026-01-23

Ganesh Ram Meena

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:3271] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14344/2025 Tajmamul S/o Mubarik Hasan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gadiya Mahesh Mishrili Aklera, Dist. Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/01/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.141/2025 registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota City for the offence punishable u/S 8/21 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of the statement of co-accused Rahul Chaudhary from whose possession the contraband is said to have been recovered. 3. On perusal of the material made available on record including the order of rejection of bail by the court below, it is revealed that the smack weighing 50.40 gm. is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Rahul Chaudhary. During investigation, it has come out that there is a [2026:RJ-JP:3271] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-14344/2025] transaction of money from the bank account of Rahul Chaudhary in the bank account of the present accused petitioner Tajmamul. 4. The connection of the accused petitioner seems to be sales and distribution of the narcotic drug and in such circumstances, in opinion of this Court, the accused petitioner is not entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /188