[2026:RJ-JP:25047] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10058/2026 URN: CRLMB / 18687U / 2026 Shahnawaz Mohammad S/o Shri Wakati Bhai, R/o Hat Chowk Mohalla Aklera, Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Dhakar-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/07/2026 1. The instant anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S has been filed by the petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with the FIR No. 120/2026, registered at the Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery of contraband has been effected at the instance of the co-accused person namely Abdul Latif @ Raja, who has already been granted the benefit of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS by the Trial Court i.e. the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, vide order dated 15.05.2026. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely booked in the instant case on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused Abdul Latif @ Raja. [2026:RJ-JP:25047] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10058/2026] Hence, under these circumstances, the benefit of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that on the basis of the information received from the co-accused Abdul Latif @ Raja stating that he bought the contraband from the petitioner, a prima facie case is made against the petitioner to apprehend him. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of bail by this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments raised by learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant anticipatory bail application submitted by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/33