IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.
Kaushal S/o Bheem Singh Sansi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 5802, 6334 of 2026
Decided On : 05-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual matrix and custodial status of the accused. (Para 1 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding false implication and evidentiary admissibility. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial criteria for granting bail pending trial. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. standard bail order with necessary conditional safeguards. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Kaushal S/o Bheem Singh Sansi and Sonu S/o Bannalal @ Banna Sansi, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.81/2026 dated 20.03.2026 registered at P.S. Sadar Tonk, District - Tonk, for the offence under Sections 8/20, 8/25 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicants undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner accused Kaushal submits that no recovery is effected from the present petitioner. He further submits that the recovery is effected from accused Sonu and only on his interrogation note, the present petitioner Kaushal was arrayed as an accused. He further submits that the pending cases are relating to Excise Act and they were registered five years before the registration of current case.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner accused Sonu submits that police has not complied with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act before effecting search and seizure. He also submits that the petitioner was not aware about the bag loaded on scooty. He also submits that the recovered article of green leaves and stems does not fall within definition of ganja. He also submits that the recovered quantity is less than commercial and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner accused.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.
7. After midnight on 20.03.2026, a person was found running on scooty number RJ-26-ES-2147 who was nabbed on follow-up. The police has recovered 10.681 kg of ganja from a gunny bag loaded on scooty. The accused Sonu was detained and an FIR No. 81/2026 was registered at PS Sadar, District Tonk. Arrested Sonu has named Kaushal as the source of supply of ganja to him and Kaushal was arrested on 22.03.2026 for the offence under Section 8/29 of NDPS Act. There is no criminal antecedents against petitioner accused Sonu, but five criminal cases relating to Rajasthan Excise Act were registered against petitioner accused Kaushal, the last case was registered on 30.10.2021. The recovered quantity of Ganja is less than commercial.
8. The issue regarding recovery of green leaves and stems is required to be considered at the time of trial and not a subject matter at this stage. The ganja is defined under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. We are not expressing any opinion on basis of material placed before us.
9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants-accused.
10. Thus, these bail applications filed on behalf of applicants-accused Kaushal S/o Bheem Singh Sansi and Sonu S/o Bannalal @ B
Bail may be granted when the investigation is complete, the accused has been in custody for a significant period, and the trial is likely to be delayed, provided that the court does not express a fin....
When contraband is recovered from separate bags belonging to different individuals, the total quantity cannot be aggregated to constitute a commercial quantity. Consequently, stringent bail condition....
Bail may be granted in cases involving non-commercial quantities of contraband when the investigation is complete, the accused is no longer required for custodial interrogation, and the trial is expe....
Strict adherence to the provisions of the NDPS Act is mandatory for granting bail, especially concerning commercial quantities of narcotics, as reiterated by the court's findings.
Bail may be granted when the quantity of contraband is below commercial threshold and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
In cases involving narcotics, where the investigation is complete, the recovered quantity is less than commercial, and there is no evidence of habitual involvement in illicit trade, the court may exe....
The court ruled that the lack of evidence and the applicants' clean record justified their release on bail.
Bail granted based on lack of criminal antecedents and evidence supporting continued detention.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.