[2025:RJ-JD:53756]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 13000/2025 Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Godu Police Station Bajju District Bikaner (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

11/12/2025

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.189/2023, registered at Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 8/15 and 25 of NDPS Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, SHO, P.S. Bajju along with his police team conducted nakabandi (blockade) near Kolasar–2 Nagrasar Road. During the nakabandi, the police team of P.S. Bajju signalled one unnumbered Bolero car to stop, but the driver of the offending vehicle turned the vehicle around and accelerated the speed by making an attempt to flee. The police team started chasing the offending vehicle; however, the driver of the offending vehicle, by taking advantage of the darkness, escaped from the spot on foot, leaving the offending vehicle in an abandoned condition. The police team of P.S. Bajju, after following the procedure provided under the NDPS Act, searched the offending vehicle and recovered a huge quantity, i.e., approximately 02 quintals 47.200 kgs of contraband, from the vehicle.

4. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the registered owner of the offending vehicle is one Satpal. When the registered owner of the vehicle was served with a notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, he replied that he had sold the offending vehicle, i.e., vehicle No. RJ-19-GG-7378, to one Manoj Kumar through an agreement to sell. When Manoj Kumar was served with a notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, he informed that he had handed over the offending vehicle to the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the reply given by Manoj Kumar to the notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and the statements of the Seizure Officer recorded before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that apart from the reply given by Manoj Kumar under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, there is no other direct or circumstantial evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime.

Learned counsel submitted that the statements of Manoj Kumar have already been recorded before the competent criminal court as PW-2. Manoj Kumar (PW-2), during his court statement, has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the material available on record clearly shows that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner; the statements of material prosecution witnesses, viz., the Seizure Officer and Manoj Kumar, have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and therefore there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing them or fleeing from justice.

6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applicat