[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Govind Kumar Alias Sunder vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13405) on 19 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:13405]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 6034/2025
Govind Kumar @ Sunder S/o Nanu Ram Rayka, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Sawa Ki Dhani Police Station Shambhupura
District Chittorgarh Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
19/03/2026
1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024, registered at Police Station
Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 8/15
& 8/29 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the
prosecution, on 07.03.2024, a police team headed by the SHO of
Police Station Nimbahera, during routine nakabandi within its
jurisdiction, intercepted an Innova car bearing Registration No. RJ-
14-UE-3019. The driver of the said vehicle, namely Bherulal, along
with the co-accused passenger, i.e., the present petitioner,
managed to flee from the spot.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:14:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13405] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6034/2025]
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been
implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion and
that no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession.
4. In support of this contention, learned counsel submitted that
the statements of the Seizure Officer (PW-1) and the Investigating
Officer (PW-2) have already been recorded before the competent
criminal court. Both these material prosecution witnesses have
admitted that, during the course of investigation, no material was
found which could directly connect the petitioner with the recovery
of the contraband.
5. Learned counsel contended that the material available on
record clearly indicates that the petitioner has been implicated
solely on the basis of his own disclosure statements and on
conjectures and surmises. It was further submitted that the
petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.03.2024; no other
case of a similar nature is pending against him; and that the trial
is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, it was prayed that
the benefit of bail be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that, in the present case, upon
being signaled to stop by the police, the petitioner fled from the
spot along with co-accused Bherulal; however, he was
apprehended shortly thereafter from the nearby vicinity. It was
further submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record to
establish that the petitioner, in concert with co-accused Bherulal,
was transporting contraband in a quantity greater than the
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:14:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13405] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6034/2025]
commercial quantity in the said vehicle. Considering the
seriousness of the allegations, it was argued that the petitioner
does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the material available on record, particularly the statements of
the Seizure Officer (PW-1) and the Investigating Officer (PW-2),
this Court prima facie finds that, although there is an allegation
that the petitioner fled from the spot when signaled to stop by the
police, there is no documentary or other material on record to
indicate that the offending vehicle belonged to the petitioner or
that contraband in a quantity greater than the commercial
quantity was being transported by him.
8. This Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner has been
in judicial custody since 07.03.2024 and that no other case of a
similar nature is pending against him. The learned Public
Prosecutor has also not expressed any apprehension that the
petitioner may involve himself in a similar offence or flee from
justice in the event he is enlarged on bail.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
10. Consequently, this third bail application under Section 483
BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Govind Kumar @ Sunder S/o Nanu Ram Rayka,
arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.117/2024, registered at
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:14:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13405] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6034/2025]
Police Station Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on
bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a
personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/-
each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance
before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
11. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
252-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:14:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
