The High Court dismissed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS in connection with an NDPS Act FIR. The court held that co-accused statements linking the petitioner to the supply of contraband required detailed investigation, making custody necessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2026:RJ-JP:15460]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1964/2026
Jagdish Banjara S/o Surajmal Banjara, R/o Village Khedi, Dayma, Tehsil Manasda, Distt. Neemach (M.P.)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order
13/04/2026
[2026:RJ-JP:15460]
[CRLMB-1964/2026]
the alleged contraband from the accused-petitioner whose cell phone number is 9589604017. He also submits that during investigation, it has been found that the aforesaid cell phone number was being used by the accused-petitioner.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Ashish Kumar /43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in an NDPS case based on co-accused statements and investigation requirements?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdish Banjara
The State of Rajasthan
GANESH RAM MEENA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
