Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/5829/2026 of PRADEEP KUMAR S/O SAGARMAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 17 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5829/2026 Pradeep Kumar S/o Sagarmal, R/o Bhatiwad, Police Station Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For
[2026:RJ-JP:16267]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5829/2026
Pradeep Kumar S/o Sagarmal, R/o Bhatiwad, Police Station Gudhagorji, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Rahul Agrawal
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. S.R. Dhakad, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
17/04/2026
1. This anticipatory bail application is filed by the accused petitioner u/S 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 52/2026 registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable u/S 8/18 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 statements of the co-accused. He further submits that the accused petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation and no purpose will be served by sending the accused-petitioner in custody.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.
4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also
[2026:RJ-JP:16267] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-5829/2026] perused the contents of the FIR and the order of rejection of bail passed by the Court below.
5. The facts which emerges from the contents of the FIR that the police received a secret information that the accused- petitioner and his brother-Sandeep Kumar possessed the Opium at their residence and someone is coming to purchase that. When the police made the search, the present accused-petitioner ran away and his brother-Sandeep Kumar was caught on the spot and a recovery of 1.520 Kg. Opium was effected. In the statements of the co-accused recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act, the co-accused Sandeep Kumar has categorically deposed that the person who ran away from the spot on the raid by the police is is brother, who is the present accused-petitioner.
6. As per the settled law, the statements of the co-accused recorded u/S 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be discarded until and unless there is an otherwise evidence.
7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the version of the brother of the accused- petitioner deposed u/S 67 of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused- petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /62