[2026:RJ-JP:19315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6047/2026 Anees Alias Wanis S/o Razzak Kha, R/o Village Nagla Doongar Kherthal, Police Station Kherthal, District Kherthal-Tijara (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.P. Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar with Mr. Shivam Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 07/05/2026 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.372/2025, registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal-Tijara, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 115(2), 126(2) 117(2), 110 & 3(5) BNS, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that it is a case of version and cross-version. Learned counsel also contends that the other co-accused persons, namely Wasim and Sakrulla, have already been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case, hence, the petitioner may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. [2026:RJ-JP:19315] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6047/2026] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the other co-accused persons have been granted bail on the ground that the allegation of inflicting injury is on the main accused i.e. present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedent and investigation is still pending. Thus, the benefit of anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the totality of facts & circumstances of the case; the nature of accusation; the fact that the allegation for causing injury has been levelled against the present petitioner, and the investigation in the matter is still pending, but without commenting anything upon the merits / demerits of the case, this Court, is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS is dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SAHIL SONI /28