[2026:RJ-JP:3663] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16433/2025 Nepal Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dobada, Police Station Dug, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 27/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No. 178/2020 registered with the Police Station Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar for offences punishable under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act in Sessions Case No. 50/2020 (State Vs. Jagtar Singh) and against the order dated 13.10.2025 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner under Sections 8/15, 8/25 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that the person i.e. Jagtar Singh, from whose possession the alleged contraband was recovered, is said to have received that [2026:RJ-JP:3663] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16433/2025] contraband from Dashrath Singh and Raju and when Dashrath Singh and Raju were interrogated, they said that they have received this contraband from the present accused-petitioner. Meaning-thereby, the present accused-petitioner has been implicated as an accused on the basis of chain of supplying the alleged contraband. Counsel further submits that on the basis of interrogation/ statements of co-accused Dashrath Singh and Raju, who have been made as accused on the basis of the interrogation/ statement of Jagtar Singh, from whose possession the said contraband i.e. 11.30 Kg. Doda Chura was recovered, the present accused-petitioner has been made an accused. Counsel also submits that the accused-petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation, hence, he may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3. To support the submissions, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has also relied upon the following judgements delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) Criminal Appeal No. 105/2026 Rambali Sahni V/s State of Bihar delivered on 07.01.2026; and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 3640/2025 Jugraj Singh V/s State of Punjab delivered on 20.08.2025. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the allegation against the accused- petitioner is of serious and grave nature. He also submits that in the interrogation of the co-accused Dashrath and Raju, it has [2026:RJ-JP:3663] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16433/2025] come out that they received the alleged contraband from the accused-petitioner. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the challan papers. 6. The accused-petitioner has been connected in the present criminal case on the basis of the statements of accused Jagtar Singh and then the statements of co-accused Dashrath and Raju. The alleged contraband i.e. 11.30 kg. Doda Chura was recovered from the possession of co-accused Jagtar Singh, who in his statement stated that he has received that contraband from co-accused Dashrath and Raju. When accused persons Dashrath and Raju were interrogated, they stated that they have received the alleged contraband from the accused-petitioner. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the interrogation note of the co-accused Dashrath and Raju, it has come out that they have received the alleged contraband from the petitioner. He submits that except this, there is no other evidence so as to connect the accused-petitioner with the chain of supplying the alleged contraband. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rambali Sahani (Supra) has observed as under:- “7. Turning our attention to the merits of the case, we notice at the cost of the repetition that appellant herein has been arraigned as an accused on the basis of the co-accused statement. As to the actual [2026:RJ-JP:3663] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16433/2025] complicity of the appellant is an issue which will have to be thrashed out after trial and as such the appellant would be entitled for being released on bail. 8. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and though we restore the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the High Court, we make it clear that the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer on such terms and conditions as he deems fit.” 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jugraj Singh (Supra) has also observed as under:- “4. The case of the appellant is that nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellant but he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused who has suffered recovery. It is also the case of the appellant that earlier also, he was similarly implicated on the basis of a disclosure statement of a co- accused wherein he was granted the protection of Anticipatory Bail. 7. It is not the case that the appellant did not join investigation. Merely because nothing incriminating could be discovered would not mean that there is non-co- operation on the part of accused. Otherwise also, in the Counter Affidavit, it is not stated that any effort was made to trace out the mobile number of the appellant and collect the call detail records or that any raid was carried to find out whether he is in possession of any incriminating material. In such circumstances, and having regard to the fact that earlier also the appellant was similarly made an accused and was accorded similar protection, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal by making the interim order absolute subject to the following two conditions: (A) The appellant shall co-operate in the investigation and make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency; and (B) He shall submit bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned along with an undertaking that he shall not threaten the witnesses or tamper the evidence.” 10. Taking into consideration the overall facts and [2026:RJ-JP:3663] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16433/2025] circumstances of the case as detailed above, this Court deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. The Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the accused- petitioner is accordingly allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Bhawanimandi, District Jhalawar in F.I.R. No. 178/2020 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided of him furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /256