Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sushil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 July, 2026
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2026:RJ-JP:34698]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1049/2026
CNR: RJHC010041102026 | URN: CRLMB / 2323U / 2026
Sushil Kumar S/o Dolatram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Asand
Police Station Asand District Karnal State Hariyana (At Present
Lodged At District Jail Barmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2215/2025
CNR: RJHC010176892025 | URN: CRLMB / 4695U / 2025
Pravin Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Asandh, Ps Asandh, Dist. Karnal, Haryana. (Lodged In Dist. Jail
Barmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh
Ms. Priyanka Borana
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. O.P. Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
27/07/2026
1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed
by the applicants-accused Sushil Kumar S/o Dolatram
and Pravin Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand seeking bail in
respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.34/2024
dated 06.04.2024 registered at Police Station Nagana,
District Barmer, for the offence under Sections 8/22, 25 and
28 of the NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]
investigation against them is complete and they are no more
required in investigation. He further submits that there are
no chance of fleeing of applicants-accused from the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the
applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate
with trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring order
dated 18.12.2025 in Bail Application No.8303/2025; “Govind
Dutt Vs. State of Rajasthan” has submitted that a joint
recovery is effected by police from Govind Datt, Sushil
Kumar and Pravin Kumar but a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has granted bail to Govind Dutt. He also submitted
that the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 indicate that the
specific information regarding transportation of contraband
material was received without any specific details and these
petitioners are not involved in the transportation of
contraband material. They also submitted that the driver of
the vehicle was Govind Dutt and he was granted bail by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. They also submits that
both the petitioners are travelling in the vehicle and their
independent role and involvement has not been established
by the prosecution. They also submitted that no specific and
exclusive recovery were effected from these petitioners
hence, they are entitled to seek parity on the basis bail order
in favour of Govind Dutt.
4. Learned counsel has further referred the FSL report and
submitted that as per FSL report, the recovered contraband
is not Methaqualone. She also submitted that when FSL
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]
report is negative to show presence of Methaqualone then
the petitioners are entitled for bail.
5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public
Prosecutor and submitted that the information is about these
two accused and a joint recovery has been effected from a
vehicle in presence of these petitioners. He also submitted
that FSL report gave positive test for Diphenoxylate and the
commercial quantity is 50 gm.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both
the parties.
7. On 06.04.2024, SHO, Police Station Nagana, District Barmer
had received an information that Sushil Kumar S/o Dolat
Ram and Pravin Kumar S/o Ishavar Chand (both the
petitioners) are coming in Swift VDI Car No.HR-40F-9254
with intoxicating tablets (Methaqualone, AP, LT) to sell at
Barmer. After recording information, check-post was created
to check vehicles and around 05:15 P.M. on 06.04.2024, the
said vehicle was intercepted which was driven by Govind
Dutt whereas Sushil Kumar and Pravin Kumar were sitting in
the car. On search, the police has recovered Methaqualone in
73 packets. The total quantity of Methaqualone was 25.724
Kg. On basis of recovery memo, FIR No.34/2024 under
Section 8/22 of NDPS Act was registered at Police Station
Nagana and after investigation, police has filed a charge-
sheet against Sushil Kumar, Pravin Kumar and Govind Dutt
under Section 8/22 and 25 of the NDPS Act. The material on
record indicate that till date, six witnesses were examined.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]
The list of witnesses indicate that total 16 witnesses were
named. These petitioners are in custody since 06.04.2024.
8. A Co-ordinate Bench has considered bail application of
Govind Dutt on 18.12.2025 and while allowing the bail
application has observed as under :-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel further submitted that, as per the
prosecution, the SHO, Police Station Nagana, District
Barmer, while on routine patrolling within his jurisdiction,
received specific information that co-accused Sushil
Kumar Sharma and Praveen Kumar were transporting a
huge quantity of psychotropic substances in a Swift VDI
car bearing registration No. HR-40-F9-254. Acting upon
the said information, the police conducted nakabandi and
signalled the Swift VDI car No. HR-40-F9-254 to stop.
When the offending vehicle was intercepted, the
petitioner, along with the co-accused persons namely
Sushil Kumar Sharma and Praveen Kumar, was found
sitting in the car. Upon search of the vehicle, pills
containing intoxicant substances weighing 25.724
kilograms were recovered from 73 packets.
Drawing the attention of this Court to the statements
of the seizure officer (PW-01) and the investigating officer
(PW-02) recorded before the competent criminal court,
learned counsel submitted that, in the present case, the
specific information was received only against the co-
accused persons. Learned counsel contended that, in fact,
the petitioner had incidentally joined the co-accused
persons and, at the time of boarding the vehicle, had no
knowledge about the huge quantity of intoxicant pills
being transported therein. It was further submitted that
the court statements of PW-01 and PW-02 clearly indicate
that no information was received regarding the petitioner
being a co-passenger in the vehicle.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is
in judicial custody, has no criminal antecedents, and the
trial is likely to take a considerable time to conclude.
Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that a huge
quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner and the co-accused persons.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, It was(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]argued that the petitioner does not deserve the benefit of
bail.
Having considered the rival submissions and the facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie
finds that the statements of PW-01 and PW-02 recorded
before the competent criminal court indicate that specific
information regarding transportation of pills containing
intoxicant substances was received only against the co-
accused persons. Prima facie, the possibility that the
petitioner boarded the vehicle without having knowledge
of it being loaded with intoxicant pills cannot be ruled out.
Except for the fact that the petitioner was found sitting in
the offending vehicle along with the co-accused persons,
there is no linking evidence available on record to show
that he had prior knowledge of the co-accused persons
being involved in the illegal trade of narcotic substances.
This Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner
does not have any criminal antecedents. Learned Public
Prosecutor has also failed to demonstrate any
apprehension that the petitioner may indulge in similar
activities or flee from justice if he is enlarged on bail.
The twin conditions enumerated under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act stand duly satisfied in the present case.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits
or demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.”
9. The FSL report dated 27.06.2024 is also placed on record
and result of examination is reproduced as under:-
“On micro chemical & instrumental analysis:-
The sample packed in each of the packet marked 1 एफ to 73 एफ
gave positive tests for the presence of Diphenoxylate, Nimesulide
and Phenylbutazone.
Presence of Methaqualone / Mecloqualone could not be detected
in the sample packed in each of the packet marked 1 एफ to 73
एफ.
Note: Diphenoxylate is listed under NDPS Act.
Note: Nimesulide and Phenylbutazone are not listed under NDPS
Act.”
10. The FSL report of 73 packets clearly indicate that the
recovered contraband article is not Methaqualone (synthetic
drug). As per FSL report, the packets gave positive result for
presence of Diphenoxylate, Nimesulide and Phenylbutazone.
Admittedly, Nimesulide and Phenylbutazone are not listed as
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]
intoxicating drug/contraband article under the NDPS Act. But
Diphenoxylate is listed as contraband material under the
11. As per schedule under the NDPS Act, 500 gm. and above of
Methaqualone (commonly known as Mandrax) is commercial
quantity. The FSL report indicate presence of Diphenoxylate
and 50 gm. or more of Diphenoxylate is commercial quantity
after notifications dated 19.10.2001 and 18.11.2009. Herein,
the exact quantity of Diphenoxylate cannot be ascertained in
the mix powder but there is substantial presence of
Diphenoxylate as per FSL report and the recovered quantity
is far more than commercial quantity.
12. The material on record clearly indicate that the information
was with regard to these two petitioners and these
petitioners were present at the time of recovery. The vehicle
was driven by Govind Dutt. A Co-ordinate Bench considering
the fact that the information of transportation was against
other two accused Sushil Kumar and Pravin Kumar and not
against Govind Dutt, has extended benefit of bail to Govind
while recording satisfaction under Section 37 of NDPS Act.
The evidence on record is against these two petitioners that
they were transporting contraband drugs in the car and the
contraband drugs have been recovered in the presence of
these petitioners. The recovered quantity is commercial
quantity, therefore, it is necessary for this Court to satisfy
twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
13. In case of State of Meghalaya vs Lalrintluanga Sailo
2024 INSC 537 Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering a 3
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]
Judge bench judgment in case of Customs, New Delhi vs
Ahmadalieva Nodira (2004) 3 SCC 549 has observed that
while considering bail in a commercial quantity something
more than prima facie grounds has to be existed in favor of
accused which contemplates substantial and probable cause
for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offence.
Considering the judgment in case of State of Kerala vs
Rajesh (2020) 12 SCC 122 it was held that broad
parameters laid down by the Supreme Court has to be
followed while considering an application for bail moved by
an accused involved under the NDPS Act. After considering
the legal provisions, the bail granted to Smt. “X” by the High
Court was canceled and she was directed to surrender before
the trial Court.
14. In case of NCB Vs. Mohit Agarwal (Criminal Appeal No.
1001-1002/2022) a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while considering Section 37 of NDPS Act has
observed that the length of period of custody is not a ground
to release accused on bail. Recently, a bail granted by a Co-
ordinate Bench of the High Court of Delhi was under
challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NCB Vs.
Kashif 2024 INSC 1045 and while remitting back the matter,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of
NDPS Act are required to be interpreted while keeping in
mind the scheme, object and purpose of the act along with
the impact on society as a whole. It has to be interpreted
literally and not liberally as that may ultimately frustrate the
object and purpose of preamble of the Act. While considering
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:34698] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-1049/2026]the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the
provision of Section 37 of NDPS Act which is mandatory in
nature.
15. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the
mandate of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act vis-
à-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the case of
State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora, reported
as 2026 INSC 411. The observations clearly indicate that
satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 37 is
mandatory in nature and not merely directory.
16. In view of the aforesaid, there is no exception with regard to
present petitioners are concerned, therefore, considering the
role and involvement of these petitioners in the instant case,
they are not entitled to seek parity with Govind Dutt who
was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. A
huge quantity of contraband has been recovered which is
commercial in nature and the petitioners are not entitled for
bail.
17. Accordingly, the present applications for bail filed under
Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Sushil Kumar S/o
Dolatram and Pravin Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Chand are
hereby dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
6-7/Arjun
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 06:59:39 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/07/2026 at 07:45:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
